The Seriousness of Global Warming
I admittedly like to take a more easy-going approach to poking fun at global warming. From pointing out inconsistencies, to wondering out loud why the planet really hasn’t gotten any warmer in a decade to even a bit of satire from time-to-time. I like to make it fun and entertaining for me as well as for you, the reader.
This is not one of those articles, however. Let me be quite frank with you for just a few minutes. I get a great deal of enjoyment out of putting together a few posts every day on the topic of global warming. It’s fun to be entertaining all while publishing enough information to help you understand that, in the very least, the science behind global warming isn’t as settled as Al Gore wants you to believe. But this isn’t just about science and the supposed rising temperatures that are going to destroy our planet. And that’s what I am dedicating this week’s opinion piece around: the seriousness of global warming.
Between the time I’ve put in here at Cynics to the year-or-so I was a skeptic over at the old blog and through the many guest posts I’ve done for individuals who run like-minded sites, my purpose has been to get my readers to understand that global warming is not only a myth, but one that has dire consequences and is, I believe, rooted in corruption and moral bankruptcy.
Back on October 1, 1997, Al Gore hosted a global warming conference at the White House with about 100 television weathermen in attendance. During this event, the then-Vice President announced that overpopulation fosters global warming. Mr. Gore went on to outline three ways in which this overpopulation in developing nations could be reigned in: lower the child mortality rate, expand birth control options and empower women to make decisions about child birth. In other words, (1) find ways to allow children to reach adulthood so that there is stability in a family and, as a result, reduce the need to have more children. (2) Implement some type of birth control, which Gore referred to as “controversial.” (3) Expand the killing of the unborn to save the planet, which apparently wasn’t very controversial to the ex-veep.
During that same conference, Mr. Gore said it would be “crazy” to ignore global warming just because there isn’t universal agreement in the scientific community about its existence. Al Gore was willing to encourage the early termination of pregnancies over a theory with no scientific consensus. And, to quote former President Bill Clinton on the topic of Al Gore and global warming: “[y]ou’d be amazed how many people just sort of from their anecdotal, personal experiences have this sense that there is more instability in the climate than there used to be.” Al Gore advocated the slaughter of innocent children because of a hunch?
By the way, Al Gore has four children and one grandchild. I hope his message of environmentalism hasn’t been lost on them so they’ll remember to respect the planet and help prevent overpopulation.
The Mail online reported yesterday that the inclusion of a claim in a 2007 International Panel on Climate Change report on melting Himalayan glaciers was not only wrong but the data presented wasn’t even based on peer-reviewed science. In addition, the scientist behind the claim knew the Himalayan glacier melt claim wasn’t peer-reviewed when it was included in the 2007 report but was added because “‘[i]t related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” Where is the outrage? An international panel that is supposed to remain unbiased, and scientific in their approach, planted data to influence policy makers and politicians. In other words, they lied to the world community in an attempt to sway political opinion. Why is this not front-page news? Fraud has been committed.
And then we turn our attention to the Climate Research Unit, the epicenter of Climategate, where emails leaked from scientists show confusion over the lack of warming and the inability to reconcile data from scientific instruments with tree ring samples. The entire scandal reeks of a cover-up, one that shakes the entire foundation on which global warming is built.
In the end, global warming is based partly, if not entirely (and that remains to be seen) on lies, cover-ups and a lack of scientific consensus. Global government bodies continue to attempt to legislate restrictions on how much carbon can be emitted into the atmosphere. From forcing energy companies to succumb to carbon taxes, which will be passed on to you in the form of higher electricity bills, to the encouragement and rewarding of population control through abortion and sterilization.
The goal of global warming is two-fold: money and control. Increase taxes directly on the citizens all in the name of saving the planet, or indirectly through expensive cap-and-trade programs. Then control the population by limiting births (and heavily taxing those that don’t comply), limiting lifestyle choices (incandescent bulbs are set to be banned in the United States in 2012, Time Magazine political columnist Joe Klein thinks we should all adjust our air conditioners up five degrees – and thermostat control is already happening in Moscow).
Besides, when was the last time you heard of a big-shot environmentalist actually not taking a trip in a private jet to help do his or her part to save the world? This whole global warming charade must not be so serious if it doesn’t prevent the Hollywood elite from performing their day-to-day cross-country touring and continent-hopping. Or is it up to the average Joe to make all of the sacrifices so that the elite can continue in their jet-happy and carbon-spewing ways?
Related posts:
