|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 23, 2008 - 10:48am.
In the July 18, 2008 edition of The Australian, yet another major Global Warming scientist has come forward to shed some light on the hysteria. David Evans, admittedly a former alarmist, now says that after years of searching for evidence that carbon emissions caused this warming period, they have yet to find any. He also sheds some light on the intellectual momentum behind the hysteria and the economic consequences we can expect should we allow governments to pursue their ideas for "fixes". One need only to look back to the seventies to find the same kind of hysteria surrounding the theory of a coming ice age. In fact, several books were written on the subject at the time, some suggesting that most of North America would be covered by ice by the year 2000. By the late eighties and early nineties, this new threat to our existence, Global Warming, was dreamed up. And a new enemy would take center stage - CO2. Carbon Dioxide is neccessary for plant growth and in turn, necessary for those plants to produce oxygen. You know - the stuff we need to live. In "The First Global Revolution" (Pantheon Books, 1991), authors Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider tell us on page 115: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples." This passage is but one of thousands of examples that can be found not only in books and publications, but in think tank documents from from the likes of The Club of Rome and other policy shapers. This is not to say that there are not legitimate environmental concerns we should all help to correct, but the lengths our leaders are willing to go to for complete control of society and its resources should never go unquestioned or followed blindly.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
Thank you Griff for blogging
Submitted by woody188 on July 23, 2008 - 11:30am.Thank you Griff for blogging this one. When I first read that article a day or two ago, I was hoping someone would bring it up. It definitely needs more coverage.
I look at it this way. Global warming is based largely on computer models, not evidence. Weather prediction is largely based on models in a similar manner and extent. Now obviously as the date of an event gets closer, our predictions become more accurate. But even with this, our weather men are never much more than 50/50 in their accuracy.
I think that is all the more we should give to global warming. And I don't think we should charge more taxes to fix something that is only maybe 50/50 human fault, and may not be fixable by human interference.
But I do think we should lower pollution by moving to cleaner energy generation and increase the reliability of the system by localizing the generation, regardless of a warming atmosphere. Lower taxes, not increased ones would be better capable to motivate individuals to start taking care of their own energy requirements via solar, wind, geo-thermal, and tidal energy.
Check out this article for one person's experience going solar. The savings alone could be motivation enough. He went from over $300 per month to ~$16. WOW!
Suspect science allied with
Submitted by Flapsaddle on July 23, 2008 - 10:17pm.Suspect science allied with government power is as dangerous to liberty as is a similar joining with religion; however, science is much more seductive and able to insinuate itself. Perhaps the only comment made by Rush Limbaugh with which I am in total agreement was his observation that, following the failure of the Soviet Union, the new philosophical home of doctrinaire leftists was radical environmentalism.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
One can rightly argue that
Submitted by griff on July 24, 2008 - 2:47am.One can rightly argue that the Global Warming movement has become a religion in and of itself. It certainly has the necessary ingredients - and the funding.
Who pays for all the billboards and the advertising? Who pays for the lobbyists and the lawyers? Follow the money, and those that stand to gain (the jilted Al Gore). Always.
I understand why many people have fallen for this movement. With so many aspects of our lives and our futures out of our hands, it is comforting to some to be part of a "real" solution. To have some semblance of control concerning their own destiny, and indeed the destiny of all that follow. Something they can actually take an active part in solving, a gift for future generations. A legacy.
Making matters worse is that there are legitimate concerns, many of the government's own making, that we could be concentrating on. The widespread use of depleted uranium ( 4.5 billion year half-life) weapons in theaters of war is far more environmentally destructive than a million poorly tuned cars. And we toss it around by the ton, poisoning the very earth we care so deeply about. I even saw a show on the Military Channel that actually touts its usage and capabilities. I also believe that its usage is in violation of one or more international treaties and laws.
With all this emphasis on nature, I can't believe that we don't hold our food and water to the same standards. Our food supply is not only unnatural but toxic. Our pets eat better than we do. We simply are not designed to metabolize and process the thousands of chemicals we take in every day. They end up in a fat cell somewhere, festering and causing us great harm.
Mankind has survived tens of thousands of years on a natural diet, and now it's a rare phenomenon if you don't have ten prescriptions by the time you turn 40. Now that's not natural.
Science is not infallible, and could be used for both good and for evil, not to sound comic book cliche'. I've often lamented that this is indeed the greatest of times to be alive, but at the same time it's the worst.
If global warming is such a
Submitted by Cailleach on July 24, 2008 - 9:21pm.If global warming is such a shuck, why are the polar ice caps melting? I believe the north polar sea is almost ice-free.
The point is that human
Submitted by woody188 on July 24, 2008 - 11:38pm.The point is that human activity likely has no impact on that warming one way or the other. It's going to get warmer or colder no matter what we do. It has always been this way, and it will always be until the Sun swallows the Earth. We are small and insignificant.
You may ask why the ice caps
Submitted by griff on July 25, 2008 - 12:24am.You may ask why the ice caps on Mars and Venus are also declining. Certainly not SUV's, and I don't think the rovers put out much CO2.
There exists a vast yellow orb normally visible in the daytime sky. It's called the Sun, and it provides heat and energy for the planets of our solar system. In fact, this floating mudball we call home revolves around this orb at regular intervals, in essence our keeper of time and seasons.
As this mudball revolves around the orb, it wobbles slightly on its elliptical, not circular, path. This wobble changes the vertical angle that the mudball faces the orb, thereby slightly altering the scope of the area feeling the energy of the Sun.
Here's something you can try with the kiddies. Find yourself a globe and a flashlight. Position the flashlight at a distance from the globe where the beam doesn't reach the poles, and mark a spot on the globe at the edge of the beam.
Now insert a thin object such as a floppy disk under the stand of the globe to change the angle, representing the inherent orbital wobble, and note the change in the beam's position on the globe. Now think about how much difference a minute change in the Earth's angle would be felt across 93 million miles.
You have other factors as well, all natural phases. The Moon has both a gravitational and magnetic effect as it also orbits both the Sun and Earth. The other planets have similar effects as they travel their own distinct orbits.
And then, if you had read the article I cited, you would have read that the last major warming period caused the rise in CO2, not the other way around. That also happened to be when Greenland was actually green and plant life flourished upon the Earth.
Sunspot activity and other Solar forces also play a large part in determining global temperatures. Ocean currents effect weather, and are effected thenselves by planetary and solar activity. I don't even dispute that global warming has occured, and the latest scientific data suggests that it stopped years ago, without our help.
My problem stems from the notion that humanity is ultimately to blame, and we must punish ourselves for being so careless. We need to conserve toilet paper while the Political Class jets around the world and squanders what they demand we cut back for ourselves. I wonder how much gas our war machine sucks down on an average day in Iraq.
These cycles have been occuring for untold millenia. There are forces at play in the universe that we will never even come close to understanding or quantifying, yet here we are ready to be taxed and regulated into oblivion trying once again to outsmart and outmaneuver Mother Nature.
We have no perspective anymore. All we know is what happened five minutes ago and how the media spins it. Hell, I learned half this crap in grade school. Global Warming is a complete and utter fantasy dreamed up in order to consolidate power and control resources, thereby controlling society altogether, not to mention we get to play Army in foreign lands, and control their societies as well - what's left of them.
How does the saying go? The bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe? All of this information is out there for people that really want to know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Don't believe anything you see on TV, unless there's actually something on top of your TV.
A hundred bucks
Submitted by Pablo on July 25, 2008 - 9:19am.A hundred bucks
says all the bloggers in such sad denial and defending our gluttonous lifestyles are people who drive energy-inefficient vehicles and do nothing to conserve. Whatever. I'd say just get out there and read all the evidence, but my hunch is you've already seen all that. Many believe only what they want to believe. Comparing environmentalists with religious extremism is nothing short of pathetic. Scientists base observation on facts and have no history of violence and control of populations for their resources, so comparing them to religious fanatics is nothing but an invalid emotional plea for more inaction and harm on future generations.
It is a known, observable fact that CO2 retains energy as heat in the atmosphere and it is also a known fact that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at an incredible rate over the last couple hundred years. And it is nothing short of fact that humans have dumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since industrialization began; there is no valid debate denying that we have, and continue to do this. 2 + 2 = 4. And it is a fact that we've had more and more extreme climate events AND that we've had warmer temperatures and that species are now being threatened by what was once ice cover in the winter now melting. So keep denying; you appear very foolish.
And regarding the comment that SUVs (in particular the Rover, another large gas-guzzler) don't put out much CO2, c'mon! Think about it! All the petro-combustion engines in use today convert the gasoline to energy, CO2 and other waste products using the same process. Sure, there are different cadtalytic converters and emission devices that decrease contaminants and burn up some unused fuel, but the chemical reaction from these engines that emits CO2 is the same. Therefore, if you are driving a gas-guzzler, you are a correspondingly larger emitter of CO2. More gas consumption = more emissions. 2 + 2 still = 4! Denial will cause people to say the silliest, most illogical things!
And what is the ulterior motive of all these scientists in warning us of the detrimental effects of our gluttony? It's not like they can monopolize the best forms of sustainable energy, wind and solar. The only ones with motive to lie to us are the coal and petro corporations because they have limited energy sources humans depend on to buy, but not with solar. They are very threatened by alternative energy, just like these bloggers for some reason (I suspect they like driving their SUVs, screw everybody else!). There is no motive to lie, so that justification of the environmentally-destructive lifestyle is also a joke!
And what's this claptrap about destroying our economy because we change for the better? I don't think providing new industries and many thousands of new jobs in science researching new technology and in industry building new environmentally-sound, sustainable systems such as solar and wind would destroy our economy, however, benefit it. That would greatly stimulate our economy, especially if we began exporting our technology and products.
Fortunately, people are catching on despite some people continuing on their mission of spreading denial. Let's just hope people continue listening to scientists instead of those who motivate inaction and denial!
Jane, you ignorant slut...
Submitted by almandine on August 6, 2008 - 10:04pm.Jane, you ignorant slut...