Climate Change or Climate Chains?
Blog Action Day was October 15, I am sure many people participated in posting. In fact over 13,331 posts were written. I did not.
Al Gore said Global Warming is the biggest economic disaster to face our nation in this generation. Is it? If he believes that why does he stand to gain the most economically?
Eco Fads feed on our fears:
1) Acid rain
2) Ozone layers
3) Polar Bears
4) The Ice Age
5) Global Warming
6) You are an environmentalist is you carry bottle water, now you are one if you don’t carry one.
7) In the 70’s World Population was a concern
The solutions proposed to “fix it”, will force huge international government control over our lives to control our environment.
The Media
The media has warned about impending climate doom since 1912. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.
In the last 15 years there has not been global warming, but an actual global cooling so the name has now been changed to Global Climate Control.
The United States has spent over 4 Billion dollars in Research for Climate Change. Reported in Discover in 1998, scientist and environmentalist Stephen Schneider explained,
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Stand Up
Lord Christopher Monckton, former Policy Director for Margaret Thatcher…
…spoke on October 14th at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty.
This treaty which is scheduled to be signed by our President will do 3 horrific things:
1) A world government will be created.
2) Transfer of wealth to 3rd world countries called Climate Debt
3) Enforcement of the treaty
Freedom or Tyranny
America has always been a light standing on a hill, a beacon shinning Freedom throughout the world. Science is facts, not assumptions. The more dire the threat the more people are willing to give up their freedoms.
Bottom line there is no consensus that we have influenced the earths temperature. It is a theory, a theory that has changed over the last 100 years. Yet based on this theory, laws are about to passed that will take away our individual liberties both in our homes and our workplaces.
So this is why I don’t believe or support global warming… cooling… or climate chains. It is ideology not science.
Loading ...
Consumerism, Geo-mapping columnist
Marketing columnist
…. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize – and beat out a Polish nurse who saved over 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto. Preposterous.
Navy Chief, Navy Pride
Not to mention the award to Arafat, a terrorist.
In the name of Climate Change people are against any kind of positive change that is common sense. Should we put Billions of dollars in to it? Probably not.
But for the simple fact that some do not believe in Climate Change they do not want accept better options. That does not make sense either. The subject has been blown way out of proportion to the point that most people are on one end of the spectrum or the other. No where in between, close minded and can not even discuss a topic without bringing climate change in to the picture. For example methane gases from landfills. More people would rather argue that it doesn’t matter than to realize that trash does us absolutely no good in a huge pile.
With politics and climate change taken completely out of the picture and look past the controversy rarely do people argue about it. I think its ridiculous that politics had made this such an awful topic.
Climate change is merely a leftist subterfuge to take from the productive capitalist societies and transfer to the developing societies, most of which are lead by oppressive dictators. Idia is the notable exception. The advanced societies have done the heavy technological lifting and now the runners-up seek to confiscate our wealth under the banner of climate change. If climate change were really the threat to us all that is portrayed, the developed nations would have forced the big polluters such as China and India to comply with our emissions standards. If the world is in such desperate peril from carbon emissions, we should force compliance at all costs to include the military option – if our situation is as desperate as Al Gore (10,000 sqft homestead carbon footprint) says. If you are in a boat and someone is putting holes in it, you stop them at all costs, right?
So you suggest not only adding to our environmental/economic debt the strict control of emissions but to pay to FORCE them to respond? Sounds kind of like the recent Iraq/Afghanistan war, Socialism/Communism/Distatorship in the name of climate change.
Something tells me that wouldn’t go over very well.
You see Thomas, as the United States of America we have the opportunity to lead by example. But that won’t happen because as you mention why should we care because it isn’t real.
It goes so much further than Climate Change. We have appx. 100 years of coal left to supply the world for power. With the 3rd world countries aspiring to have the ‘American’ lifestyle we can probably reduce that to 70 as their coal usage is rising so dramatically.
So how about we put the money to EDUCATE people for other careers such as trash to biofuel, or solar installation. Maybe even how to work at a hydro power plant.
But then again, it doesn’t matter as you mention right? Who cares. It’s ONLY climate change. Forget every single other factor and is affected by the topic because in the name of emissions we shouldn’t care.
I’ve always questioned our influence. I look at this way…How much of the world is land, and how much of that land do we occupy and of the land we occupy how much of it has pollution contributors? Seems like a very small percentage…so how exactly are we affecting things?
As it’s been said repeatedly…..we have NO WAY of knowing that the cap and trade proposals will even fix what is supposedly wrong. So of course the sensible alternitive is to put millions of people out of work in the meantime. Yes…we all agree we should take care of the mother ship. No we should not destroy lives because of questionable science…even by members of O’Bama’s own admin.
Thomas, that’s exactly what I am talking about. The only thing you mention is Al Gore and Climate Change.
Forget about everything else directly affected by the topic. Like the fact that we only have about 100 years of coal left to support the world and with 3rd world countries aspiring to have the American lifestyle we can significantly reduce that number.
Instead of Americans realizing that we can lead by example and putting the money to EDUCATE people on other related careers and talk about Al Gore’s huge house or the peace prize.
No, the better idea is to go to war and FORCE people to believe a certain way? Seriously.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Stephanie, thanks for commenting…I knew you would. You have always been a great example to me in publishing green posts. I have learned a lot. What is medium ground? I downsized my car, bought the right light bulbs (even though I hate them), get appliances that are Energy efficient and recycle.
But, I do it because to me it is the right thing to do, not because I have to.
The theory of whatever is the current issue….is just that a theory…and definately not a reason to sign a treaty or tax the heck out of us. You mentioned Al Gores big house which as you know uses more electricity than hundreds a people use in a life time. (Sorry I don’t have the stat in front of me.) But, isn’t he the one pushing this..doesn’t he have the most to gain financially?
I really don’t care about the Peace Prize, IMO very few given it have deserved it…maybe Mother Theresa.
Missy, Agreed. We should spend the money wisely for reasons that make sense. I would rather spend billions to send kids to college for free than to force other countries grow and react a certain way.
While Al Gore gets the attention for all of this he needs to be taken out of the equation/argument completely. He can not ’save the world’. In the end its about making common sense decisions that work for each individual person. My comments were not intended to bash your post but to agree with it for the most part. I do believe that climate change is affected by us for the most part, not that we are solely the cause, but otherwise…I agree with everything. It’s about the medium ground. And yes, peace prize is worthless.
whether or not we believe in Global Warming, theory of Evolution or Obama as a good choice for the recipient of the noble peace prize, it is obvious that there needs to me some sort of modification in out consumption methods. I’m pro-green, but against all kids of extremist action. I think each individual person has the ability to make a difference in our environment, no matter how small the change is – same applies to helping cancer research causes, child trafficking issues and any WORLD ISSUE that depends on human’s participation. (but then again, I’m an ideologist)
When subbing for a local science teacher, I witnessed a simplified ‘Scientific process’ by way of: What do I know–What do I want to find–What steps do I need to use to complete the process. Found this to be a great few days in the classroom [especially as I am Art & English / Speech-Drama trained]–this was an experience of ‘actuals’ not ‘theories’. If this is demanded of our Students, how much more so should it be demanded of those who create, delineate, generate, and downright ‘force’ laws / Bills on all of us. George Carlin had a great shtick on this involving dinosaurs eons, & man’s-inflated opinion of self. We have always ‘re-cycled’ in our home & have also added the ‘twisted’ bulbs, corrected roof / window / door items–to lower our energy Bills [mainly]. If in the process these steps help others live a ‘better life’ then fine / I just do NOT believe. Perhaps, someone should notify ELF and like groups that burning tires, autos, New Home construction—Not such a Good idea in the PR Department. Glad you posted this, Missy; very interesting comments too. It is always refreshing to read that others ‘out there in the land of Professionals’ share like thoughts.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Ines, Absolutely agree, each of us INDIVIDUALLY can make a difference. That’s the point…not the government forcing new laws and taxes on us. We all have different groups that we are passionate about and can freely give our time, money and conservation too.
Barb, excellent…we grow from each other. I’m always up for a good debate as long as it doesn’t turn personal. I know this is not a popular opinion but it is mine and glad you agree.
Thanks for sharing.
I would agree with Ines that our consumptive lifestyle in this country is not sustainable. We are far to wasteful with our energy and natural resources to continue as we have. I’ll probably be labeled as a radical, berry-eating, guitar-strumming, left-wing liberal, but I do believe that it’s governments job to force a change. Missy – you expect too much out of your neighbors to make the same smart choices that you make.
Look at the use of energy in our country. Putting global warming aside, our addiction to cheap oil has us mired in the middle east — the most dysfunctional part of our planet. A school in my area put out a flag for every one of our fallen servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first, you see a group of flags. Turn the corner and there’s more. Keep driving and there were more and more. At the end, there was a single sign indicating what each of the 5,100+ flags represent. When you see these flags you can appreciate how big this number is. In addition to the trillion dollars that we’ve spent/borrowed over there, this is a huge price that few of us appreciate. If it weren’t for our dependence on oil, we would not have been over there.
Drive through Appalachia and see entire mountaintops leveled from coal mining so that metro DC (my area) has the power that it needs. This comes at a very high cost to the local people and environment just because we need more and more power.
As a society, we make Herculean efforts to protect and increase our current energy sources. Yet when have we ever taken real steps to use energy in a smart way? We haven’t because we don’t want to endure the pain, inconvenience and cost that comes with making the change. I can only think of two times in my lifetime when the country was focused on conservation – during the 70s oil embargo and when gas recently hit $4/gal. Any other time it’s been “filler up”.
So what do we do? I think that energy should be a lot more expensive as it is in Europe. It should be taxed to reflect its true cost. Make it more expensive and then we’ll all have a strong financial incentive to be less wasteful and to seek out more sustainable sources.
To believe that our current habits don’t have a significant impact on our environment and climate is a bit far-fetched to me. Regardless, long before the East Coast gets swamped by rising tides, our country will be bankrupt if we don’t radically change our energy policy.
I would rant more, but my vegan burger is getting cold, and my pet spotted owl can only go to sleep if I turn off the computer and put on some rain-forest inspired new age music.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Hi Bruce, interesting you should mention Appalachia as I did my Social Work internship there. The biggest destroyer there was Johnson War of Poverty, but that is another topic for another day.
America must become Energy sufficient and efficient for many reasons and get our dependency off terriorist regimes. We need to unlock the Governments ban on off shore drilling and allow the states to move forward with drilling. We need to expand the use of hydrogen cars and let loose the entrepreneurs to innovate with clean energy, home grown solutions.
Enjoy that vegan burger, never tried one myself.
Hydrogen is a dead end. It must be released from something else. It requires more energy to release it than you can get back when you use it. Eventually cars will be plug-in diesel hybrids and the electricity (all of the energy that humanity will need for millions of years) will come from nuclear fission breeder reactors.
Real estate often gives me a headache. All the in’s and out’s.
Global warming give me a migraine. Who and what to believe. I know this. We should conserve energy and avoid waste and personally polluting. I don’t think government is the answer, it’s us ALL doing our little part. You don’t have to be a tree hugger, what ever that is, but individually consider what we consume and what we waste.
I’m more concerned that one day, China will wrap all 10 of it’s fingers around fossil fuels throat, then we’re in deep do-do. I’m in favor of incenting alternative fuel generation…pronto. Let the rest of the world have oil, we need dylithium crystals, or wind/wave and who knows what power.
I forget who said it, “It’s better to remain silent than to open your mouth and prove you’re an idiot”, but, I think I should have listened to them before writing this comment.
I don’t see how anyone can argue whether or not the world is experiencing a change in climate. However, I do think it is fair to ask the question as to whether or not it is humans that are causing it. Now after all of the reading I have done I still cannot decide what side of the fence I am on when it comes to that question, but I don’t think that we need to answer it.
I personally am very confused as to why we need to have a huge brandable catastrophe to make the decision that we all would be better off without pollution. This is the bigger question in my book. Why must we see our very near demise to care about air quality? If you look at the growing (as a percentage) respiratory health issues that are being seen in larger cities how can you not see a need to do something. We are beyond a doubt polluting our world at a rate beyond what the ecosystems can clean up. This is why we need to make advances in alternative energy sources.
The arrogance of Man is peaking in our time. Control climate? What sorta colossal ego does that take to even contemplate longer than it takes to laugh at the endless punch lines available?
Geez, only a century ’till we’re outa coal? Whatever will we do? (guy wringing hands in background) Gimme a break people. I like Stephanie’s idea — more clearly stated as taking the pseudo logic generated by the terminally stupid concept of PC, out of the equation.
I wonder where nuclear technology will be in the next 20 years, much less 100? What if horses were thought to have been dying out at the turn of the 20th century? Would we have developed the cult of the horse, using PC crappola, or would we have developed the automobile and air travel?
Take PC bullying out of the equation, and the world doesn’t need coal in the next 10-20 years ever again. Global warming has recently morphed into ‘Climate Change’ cuz the undeniable facts had begun to pull their collective pants down. When it comes to that subject, my favorite factoid is the two ’scientists’ who had a best seller 30 years ago about the ‘coming ice age’ who’re now at the forefront of the ‘global warming crisis’.
It’s all a crock.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Well Baldguy, why don’t you tell us how you really feel? Of course we can’t change the climate…only one Person I know can, and He sits in the heavens and laughs. Psalms 2:4.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Ken, I know how you feel, it is a bit overwhelming…AND your comment is great. Windmills are a great use of energy. Lots of testing on that going on in Michigan.
All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and until the present are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The method uses only the time-integral of sunspot count and 32-year long up trends and down trends that have an amplitude of 0.45 C and are probably related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Data sources, a graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/ind.....nkbox=true . The standard deviation of the difference between concurrent calculated and measured average global temperatures is 0.064 C. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide. Invoking Cap and Trade would be an egregious mistake that would have no effect on climate but would further cripple the economy.
Delicious | Flickr | Facebook | Linked-in | Twitter
Dan, thank you for the link and the graphs.
The Waxman-Markey bill would kill jobs, increase fuel costs and be very expensive for American consumers. We would also be importing more foreign oil.
Time to open up our own natural resources and not be foreign oil dependent.
Add to that the International Offsets provision and it will be the largest transfer of wealth our country has seen.
According to the EPA, over 1.4 Trillion sent overseas.