Global Warming Skeptic

The leftist AP’s “Science Writer” Seth Borenstein (Ooh! Are we impressed?) wrote an article, “Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real”.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

I, for one, am happy for any skeptic who finally comes home to the comfort of a theory he believes in. Does that mean I am now supposed to follow suit, lemming-like?

I tried to find out what Mr. Borenstein’s educational background is, but was unable to. The biographies I did find mentioned what he had written and awards he had received, but nothing was mentioned about his training or his qualifications. Experience tells me that if he wanted the public to know his educational background or if he were proud of it, it would be there to be found. Is he trying to hide something? I did find a site with a poll about Mr. Borenstein. It asked if you believed in the “dire predictions for the world environment” he had made. 90% said he didn’t know what he was talking about. Consider the source.

What is the global warming issue all about, anyway? Is it a scientific debate? A political debate? And where do economics come in? Is the so-called green economy model a rational response to meaningful information, or is it an hysterical response to an apocalyptic fear that the “sky is falling”?

Today, it’s politically correct to swallow the message of the save-the-planet radicals who warn our energy use is “unsustainable”. Folks feel like they’re “doing something” by buying an electric car or hybrid. They just want to do their bit to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. The smooth catchphrase goes down like honey: electric power is cleaner and reduces emissions. So, plug in your car to refuel it. How is that electricity produced? In the United States, most electricity is produced by the burning of coal or natural gas. Exactly what good do electric cars accomplish? Nothing.

Of course, fossil fuel haters (or the haters of capitalism) want to change that and have been trying to develop alternate fuel sources for over 30 years. The problem with that is “…renewable energy sources like wind and solar power … are boutique energy sources: they produce relatively minute amounts of energy and do so intermittently. While they may be cost-effective in limited locals, they are unreliable for large-scale electricity generation.” (Dr. Sallie Baliunas — See reference below.) The success of these alternate fuel sources can be seen in the solar power company that recently went bankrupt, despite receiving bail out money from the Obama administration. “Green” power is simply unsustainable.

For the purpose of argument, let’s assume that global warming is a fact. This will lay aside one problem — that the study in Borenstein’s article dealt with land temperatures. According to the article, “Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.”  Assuming global warming as fact also lays aside disputable data and disputable conclusions. For instance, Muller is quoted, “There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures.” His statement flies in the face of recorded temperatures for about the past 13 years that clearly demonstrate we have been in a cooling period.

But let’s not get bogged down in the details. Let’s assume that global warming is a fact. According to the article, “The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it’s man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.” This unsubstantiated claim is an opinion — just that. There are lists of hundreds of scientists who have gone on record opposing the anthropogenic theory. And since when does consensus make for good science anyway? Consensus only tells us what is politically correct. It doesn’t prove one thing, scientifically speaking. It used to be agreed that the Sun went around the Earth, and before that, that the world was flat.

The man-made theory has no merit scientifically, because the earth has had previous periods of global warming prior to industrialization and prior to the use of petroleum fuels. One such period of global warming was a boon to agriculture in Europe, Greenland and Iceland. These periods were then followed by periods of global cooling, sometimes called mini ice ages. Global climate change is cyclical, and a far superior theory for what causes it is changes in the Sun. Some scientists relate climate changes on Earth to Sun spot activity. But the global warming mongers want nothing to do with that theory because the Sun is beyond their control. Control is what motivates them — global political and economic control.

Those who work hardest at selling the fear of global warming aren’t scientists at all. They are politicians who seek to gain control of the economy through regulations and taxation supposedly for saving the planet from an imagined doom — regulations designed to destroy the free enterprise of capitalism and taxation to take control of our money and thereby our freedoms. My point is, as the article says, “Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.” Nothing in his study proves that at all. He simply makes a leap of faith.

Back in 2002 my eyes were opened to the senselessness of the “Green” movement, and how it is just part of the global socialist movement (Savage calls it Pan-Leninism in his best selling book, Trickle Up Poverty.) designed to control every aspect of life on the planet. I read an article by Sallie Baliunas in Imprimis, a publication of conservative Hillsdale College. Sallie Baliunas is an astrophysicist who received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. A list of articles she has written can be found at:

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38

In her Imprimis article, Dr. Baliunas showed what we could expect, in terms of “Averted Global Warming” if the stated emission cuts of the Kyoto Accords were achieved (at a cost of between $100 billion and $400 billion a year!) that by the year 2100 the average global increase in atmospheric temperature would be about one degree Celsius less than if nothing is done. The plan to go green and reduce emissions by curtailing the use of fossil fuels is grossly ineffective. It’s comparable to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound and then saying, “At least I did something.” Well, pissing in the wind is doing something, too.

Aside from global warming alarmists calling the use of fossil fuels “unsustainable”, they want their use stopped now, preventing us from using resources we currently have available to us. With a total lack of intellectual integrity, fossil fuel opponents cite air pollution and oil spills as reasons to reduce our use of them. But technology has greatly reduced those problems in the United States, where the air is cleaner than it was when I was a boy in the 1950s, despite more people driving more cars burning more gas. And the danger of oil spills from drilling has been greatly reduced.

As always, policies of the left are fraught with hypocrisy. The requirements for emission reduction aren’t the same for everyone. Even though our problem is supposedly global, energy restrictions are mainly placed on nations who are comparatively advanced — nations also known for their traditions of freedom. Third world nations, most of which deny their people basic human rights, are allowed to pollute to their heart’s content, on the assumption that this will give them an edge in the process of building up their industries, infrastructure and economic vitality.

So China, the biggest country in the world, responsible for half of all manufacturing on the planet, isn’t given the responsibility of helping to avert the impending global warming disaster. It’s not their job to clean up the planet, because they are already under socialist control. The issue isn’t global warming. It’s global socialism. If it were purely a scientific discussion, we could all be dispassionate about it. But those who seek to reshape our society and culture into the socialist mold have already put into law needless regulations and restrictions on our freedoms which in no way will benefit our planet.

The cycles of global warming and cooling will continue to happen whether or not human beings alter their energy use. All we accomplish by restructuring our energy use with its political and economic ramifications is that we will be less free. We are exchanging factual science for consensus; the productivity of capitalism for the miasma of socialism.

Al Gore, the leftist non-scientist politician, produced a frightening film based on lies and faulty data that duped a young, impressionable generation. The socialist world rewarded him with the Oscar and the Nobel Peace prize. Much of the world believes the threat of global warming is dire. They believe it with the fervor of religion. Equally, the same people also make the humanist assumption that we are responsible for the climate change, and we have to change it back. What crap and nonsense.

I wish I could live another century or so, just to be able to say, “I told you so.” But I am sure that by the time fears of global warming have been allayed, the pan-Leninists will have come up with another scary scenario to frighten people into accepting even more regulation and more taxation. I can almost hear the banshees screaming now.

Update: Here is a link to an article that puts global warming into perspective:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

Advertisements

About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in Global Warming, Pan-Leninism, Science, Socialism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Global Warming Skeptic

  1. Although you can argue with the statistical facts about the weather, you cannot argue with the damage that fossil fuels have done to multiple ecosystems. Also, you brought up an interesting point about how Al Gore, the liberal, environmental activist who produced An Inconvenient Truth, a movie encouraging people to switch to “green” sources of energy in order for monetary gain. When you compare this notion to the fact that the Koch brothers funnel billions of dollars earned from oil to Republican candidates whose proposed tax cuts would diminish tax cuts to the 1% and decrease the effectiveness of government for the 99% of the citizens like you and me. Of course in a capitalist society everybody’s interest is financial but which political side will benefit the common man, like you and me?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      Many of the comments I receive are from what I refer to as “soft thinkers”, that is, their use of language reflects a lack of discipline in both analysis and argumentation skills (effectively confronting one view with an opposing view), a lack of critical thinking skills, and all-round poor communication skills. These are not comments from individuals striving to arrive at a better understanding of the truth. And short of the truth, they aren’t even the comments of individuals who are willing to specify exactly at what point they disagree, in what way they disagree, or give reasons why they consider their position correct or superior to mine.

      Civilized conversation (colloquy) can involve verbal parries, which set up verbal thrusts. It’s a way of fighting with ideas as weapons, and it requires skill, discipline, knowledge and respect for one’s opponents. But rather than parries and thrusts, I get comments that are more like doing the “cannonball” off the diving board and hoping that part of the splash gets someone wet. Rather than staying on point and striking the target, these comments spew out, as if shot from a blunderbuss, revealing the scatter-brained thinking that produced them.

      These “soft thinkers” are not so much motivated to discuss particular matters of disagreement, as they are to blurt out a general agenda. I liken their “mind set” (if you can call it that) to that of a street demonstration. The idea of communication, as such, isn’t really on their minds. They just want to “show the world” (demonstrate) they have an opinion, and hope their dedication will influence others to have the same opinion. They are caught up in “street smarts”. Similarly, the methods they use to convince others to agree with them are the same as political activists. They make emotional appeals, employ deception, lie and condone the use of force. In fairness, not all soft thinkers are liars. They don’t have to be. All they have to do is believe the lie. When they do, they become useful idiots, malleable dupes in the hands of those who would manipulate them.

      Here’s an example: In only one paragraph, this comment mentioned

      1) “statistical facts about the weather” (not my point at all)
      2) “the damage that fossil fuels have done to multiple ecosystems” (without citing a single example)
      3) a re-characterized “interesting point” I supposedly made about Al Gore, to which was added “in order for monetary gain”, which is ambiguous and makes no sense.
      4) “the Koch brothers funnel billions of dollars earned from oil to Republican candidates” — So is the oil industry bad because fossil fuel is bad, or because it helps Republicans? The ignorance here is astounding. Hero, Al Gore’s family made their wealth in oil, too. Is there something bad about the freedom to financially back a politician you like? Or are you saying the politicians are in the pockets of “Big Oil”? By the way, there’s nothing stopping you from investing in those oil companies and sharing in the profits, yourself. If you want to look at crooked politicians, you needn’t stop at campaign contributions. Don’t you get upset at all about Senator Feinstein having the political influence to make sure her husband has made big profits in deals with the Chinese? What about the undue influence George Soros has? doesn’t that bother you? And by the way, I’m not not a Republican. I belong to the Constitution Party.
      5) “proposed tax cuts would diminish tax cuts to to the 1% and decrease the effectiveness of government for the 99%” — You don’t know what you’re talking about. You say nothing specific, only unfounded generalizations. You believe in nonsense. The 1% / 99% BS is strictly wealth envy. You want money that isn’t yours. It’s called coveting. More important numbers are 33% on the left, 33% on the right and the rest in the middle. I’m not in your percentile, common man or not.
      5) “in a capitalist society everybody’s interest is financial” — ambiguous. Your statement can mean anything, so it means nothing. You have to learn how to use language to mean what you want to say. No matter where you live or what kind of an economic system you are under, people need to eat, have shelter, wear clothes, have transportation, get medical care, etc. Those things cost money. Historically, capitalism has proven to provide money, goods, services and opportunities to the greatest percentage of those in the system than any form of socialism.
      6) “but which political side will benefit the common man, like you and me?” — You have to learn to ask the right questions, or else, you will never find the right answers. Why do you think a political “side” is going to benefit the common man? Only when all sides can work in concert will common man be benefitted. One of the tactics used by those who would usurp a democratic republic is to pit different groups of people against each other. The Nazis blamed all of Germany’s problems on the Jews, who were completely innocent “common man”. (And remember, just because the Nazis were anti-communist didn’t mean they were conservatives. This is something those on the left try very hard to forget. The Nazis were socialists.) If your thinking is caught up in “Democrat good; Republican bad” you have been hoodwinked.

      In the new globalist world, both the Democrats and Republicans are nothing more than two sides of the same coin: big government and partners with the international “community”. They aren’t looking out for the nation or the common man. They are trying to create a one world government, in which the U.S. is only a regional “homeland” with no rights guaranteed by the constitution because Pan-Leninist internationalism does not permit self-determination or any other freedom that isn’t moderated by some unelected (and therefore unaccountable) panel of so-called experts, appointed for politically correct reasons.

      Freedom is the greatest benefit to the common man. With freedom, the common man is only limited by his lack of imagination. The fear of global warming and the socialist promise to save us from the dire consequences of fossil fuel usage is just another way of making the common man less free and more dependent on and accountable to the State. Science is just being used as a political tool to advance the socialist agenda.

      Like

  2. Wow, those were some very interesting points. You have changed my mind on a few subjects. I do wonder though: which politician will you support in the upcoming election?

    Like

    • retiredday says:

      That is a refreshingly open-minded response on your part. I will most likely vote for the Constitution Party’s Presidential nominee, but I don’t know who that will be yet.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s