Editorial: Global Warming
Another shoe has dropped. Scientists have been forced to withdraw their estimates of rising sea levels as inaccurate due to “mistakes”. http://patriotupdate.com/stories/read/2823/Climate-scientists-withdraw-journal-claims-of-rising-sea-levels
This followed closely behind scientists who admitted that the warming phenomenon had stopped and stagnation or cooling had begun in 1995. This doesn’t quite jell with the reference of 1998 being the hottest year in history or the hottest year since a year in the 1930’s but they do have one thing in common, as do all the rest of the news about fudge factors, improper assumptions, selective use of data, missing data, extortion, suppression of the truth and punishment of those who oppose the governmental cash cow that had fallen upon global scientists. That one thing all this news has in common is that those who follow Al Gore don’t care. They are more rigidly dogmatic in their belief of Global Warming than a practicing Catholic, Jew or Protestant are in the existence of God. But Global Warming was presented to us as a science, not as a faith. So why is it that people so dogmatic in their belief of the existence of Global Warming hang on no matter how precarious their position is as compared to what is quickly, one step at a time, being uncovered as the truth?
It is because Global Warming is, was and always has been a political issue, not a scientific issue. Persons who hold onto the faith of Global Warming do so out of a sense that government must have a role to play in controlling the environment. They cannot admit that government does not have such a significant role. They cannot accept that oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power or any other commercial source of energy is anything but evil. They are more tightly aligned with the Unibomber than they are with the Capitalist system and there is no way they can allow the evil capitalists to win this or any argument. But what this should prove to rational minds is that when we allow the market to determine the efficacy of different energy solutions we will be well ahead of any government solution that is predicated on nothing but old fashioned politics.
Its good things, keep share
Reply to this
I am really thankful to you for this great read!! You did a very great job, keep it up.
Reply to this
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global surface temperature increased during the 20th century.
Reply to this
That isn't the issue. The issue is whether this is good, whether this is bad or whether this has any consequence at all. And, finally, does man have any material impact on this? I would say that the warming during the last century also contained some periods of cooling as nature balances its atmosphere and that man has such little impact on this that the Al Gores of the world would be completely comical were it not for all the spending they have caused to take place, all the fraud contained within the numbers you cite and all the sheer scientific stupidity that surrounds this "issue".
Reply to this
So here's my question for you then. Should the government not hold any industry to any sort of regulations?
Warmer temperatures are not the only danger of continuing our enormous consumption of fossil fuels. Pollution does affect our health, and the health of all other species on earth.
My grandparents live in a town called Pinedale, WY, where in the last 10 years or so the amount of natural gas drilling has skyrocketed. At first, many in the town welcomed the drilling companies because they believed that it would be a huge economic benefit. Yet, as the years passed, the support of the town fled. The lakes and streams become polluted, causing the fish to die off, and many migratory animals began to either die or leave the area. My grandparents get calls quite often that advise children and the elderly to stay indoors all day because the ozone levels have become so high that even stepping out their front door could do significant damage to their health. (Pinedale, with a population of about 1,500 or so, regularly has ozone levels higher than the city of Los Angeles)
I am an 18 year old guy who is in the process of finding where my political ideologies lie and where I will place my votes in the elections to come. It is frustrating for me, because I am overall fiscally conservative (which is what made me interested to investigate the tea party), but I feel that groups that are fiscally conservative often neglect issues as critical as the environment. Can anyone help me to understand how you can justify this?
Reply to this
Of course the government should hold industry to standards. Don't confuse the opposition to an overreach by organizations like the EPA as opposition to all government regulation.
Until the country through free and open markets identifies a safe and economic substitute for the fossil fuels the fact is that fossil fuels drive the engine of our economy. Environmental sciences made great strides in the 1970's and they cleaned our environment tremendously. They will continue to make these great strides but they will never be able to leave an area pristine.
The government must continuously monitor industry and set standards that are based upon what research indicates can be achieved. Halting drilling in the Gulf or in ANWR only serves to make us economically dependent upon nations who have to a large part identified themselves as political enemies. We must find a balance and this involves risk.
When an industry becomes a danger to a community then yes, the community must act. If the town is as small as Pinedale, WY they must rely upon the state or federal government to ensure air quality standards are being met. I am not familiar with the situation in Pinedale. All I can state is that if the environment is being threatened by enormous drilling activities, monitoring and enforcing current laws should be sufficient to protect citizens. If this is not happening I would encourage your grandparents to contact their Congressman and their Senators.
I believe you will find that most conservatives and most members of Tea Party organizations do not turn their backs on environmental issues, they simply recognize the need for a balance between the needs of the nation for resources and the impact this may have on the land and its habitat. In places like ANWR there is no balance. We want our laws obeyed and we want our laws to be created by Congress, not by a regulatory agency that has run amuck. Don't confuse the conservative support of industry to be blind faith in industry. We all expect managers to be good stewards of the land.
My original article was about global warming and the inaccurate information that in many instances was deliberately published in an effort to mislead and generate support for a fiction that the temperatures of the earth are suddenly increasing in a linear progression that will cause irreparable harm to things as significant as the depth of the sea. This was all pure fiction. In no way was this article or any other that I have written intended to be interpreted as a carte blanche endorsement of industry living outside the boundaries of any standards for environmental quality. These are two different issues entirely. Environmental science I support. Global Warming as presented by people like Al Gore is a farce.
Reply to this
Thank you for responding. That was actually helpful, and reassuring for me. The conservatives (or at least, the 18 year old, self-identified conservatives) I know all have very strong opposition to environmental protection of any kind. Since it is an issue that is very important to me, it put me off of conservatism all together.
My question is, though, what restrictions/regulations would you then support?
Also, I understand that some key scientists in the climate change debate may have been dishonest, and I don't think that this is acceptable in any way. However, I caution you to not let a few individuals sway your opinion from the truth. The truth: carbon is heat absorbing; ergo, the more carbon we emit into the earth's atmosphere, the warmer the atmosphere (and thus ocean temperatures) will become. This is fact. I don't know if you were intending to dispute this in your reply, but I just want to clarify.
Reply to this
I truly do not mean to offend you when I say this but do not draw your conclusions about any political or economic issue from an 18 year old. 18 year olds should be doing what you are doing, asking questions, not giving scientific answers. You haven't had the time yet to gain the wisdom you need to contribute.
I support regulations that strike a balance. I want corporations that take water from the river or the lake to put their waste water back into the lake cleaner than the water they take out. Regulations that require corporations to do more are not reasonable. I want corporations to remove particulate matter from their smokestacks to their best economic capability. I do not want production smokestacks to rain acid down on communities and I do not want corporations to create health hazards to their neighbors. I want recognition that farmers in Modesto have a need for water that outweighs any interest of minnows that might be caught in a pump. I want the needs of humans to be given greater importance than kangaroo rats or spotted owls. I want environmentalists and journalists to understand the science of an issue like clear cutting a forest and to stop fomenting unrest against organizations who clear cut when it is necessary to harvest a forest. I want the lies that environmentalists tell about our environment to stop. These are all generalities, I know, but what more can I do? I can't write environmental legislation here tonight and I would not be qualified to do so if I could.
Carbon is heat absorbing, yes but let's understand something. When the carbon is in the air it actually filters the sunlight preventing it from reaching the ground and this makes the ground cooler as a result. Air is warmed as a result of the ground having first been warmed by the sunlight striking the earth's surface. It is not the other way around. Also, the carbon that people talk about controlling includes CO2 which is not carbon at all. CO2 is carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas that is vital to our survival. It is not a pollutant. All the judges in the world can decide it to be a pollutant but they have no bearing on the science itself. When we exhale we put CO2 into the atmosphere. Plant life depends upon CO2 for photosynthesis and this process feeds the plants and produces oxygen as its waste product, O2 that we mammals need to breath and survive ourselves.
Also, I would again caution you or anyone to assume that a warming of the earth is a bad thing. Who says it is bad and why? Isn't this a pretty brazen assumption that these environmentalists have simply presumed to be true? Is it? How do they know or how might you know what temperature or temperature range is ideal for earth? Earth has been much warmer and it has been much cooler. It remains my opinion that the temperature of our planet rises in correlation to the proximity of its orbit to the sun and the activity on the sun. Nothing that man can do will impact this one iota. I further believe that as a result of the earth being in an orbit that the temperature of the earth is cyclic in nature. It is difficult for people to comprehend cycles that last thirty or more years but if you were to look at the warnings of the environmentalists of the 1970's their great concern was the coming ice age. Don't think of temperature data as being linear. Nothing is truly linear in science yet models are typically created to expect trends that will last many decades without consideration to the likelihood that the equation is actually curvilinear which wipes out all data that you might quote. These models are also limited in their creation by virtue of the fact that man cannot know all the variables that might impact weather. The models are only as good as the programmer that creates them and they must all begin with certain assumptions and surprisingly no one ever tells us what those assumptions are. Add to this the very nature of the research scientist who wishes further funding to continue his/her research and you have a well lubricated process that will develop the results that will feed the desires of the politicians who have skin in the game, for example Al Gore. Always look to the money trail. You will see there to be a lineup of persons who wish to capitalize upon a new industry of carbon credits and all that would involve. This is more than a few key scientists in the climate change debate being dishonest. This is one of the largest scams that has ever been perpetrated on the public and at its core is the expectation that people will be foolish enough to believe the nonsense they spout.
I believe strongly in regulating the environment but not to the extent that government is then able to unreasonably deprive people of their liberties. I hope this answers your questions.
Look at what the earthquake just did in Japan. It created a giant tsunami that sent waves 100 feet tall into the shores of Japan. What might man do that could in any way equate to the forces of nature? When Mt St Helens erupted in 1980 it sent a cloud of carbon into the atmosphere that circled the earth multiple times before all its ash finally dropped to the ground. The summer following that eruption was cooler because all that particulate matter in the atmosphere did as I described above. It absorbed the rays of the sun and prevented them from reaching the ground to warm it and thus warm the surface air. Man simply cannot compete with nature. This is the one true fact that you can rely upon. What you have provided as a fact about carbon may be fact but it is not relevant.
Reply to this