Global warming must be real! After all we have top scientists and even failed presidential candidates who says so. With 86% of Europeans polled stating that they "[feel] that humans [are] a direct cause of climate change, and 45 percent believed it could be a threat to them and their families within their lifetimes. Sixty-eight percent said they would either strongly or somewhat support limitations on their purchasing and behavior in support of combating global warming" it is only a matter of time for the skeptical Americans to fall victim to more government control. Those polled said it all, they would be "either strongly or somewhat support[ing] limitations on their...behavior" (Rohinsky) in order to curb a climate threat. This statistic is quite frightening, not because of the climate threat, but because of the vulnerability such beliefs have upon freedoms.
By analyzing the nature of scientific studies, past theories, and the current evidence for global warming, it will become obvious that global warming is not a definitive theory, or even a legitimate one at that, and that the sole purpose of such a theory is to allow government to regulate and control every aspect of our lives.
To clearly understand that the sole purpose of the idea of global warming is to control us, we should look at some of the basic history of the theory. On June 24th, 1972 Time Magazine ran an article titled, "Another Ice Age." In this article is reports from the top scientists of the day including Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory stated that the next ice age was on its way. With reports of 12% increases in ice and snow in the northern hemisphere, temperature drops of 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1940, droughts, cold winters and a entire range of climate irregularities, the conclusion was that of a global cooling.
When we jump forward a couple of decades, the s almost no one has even heard of global cooling, and global warming is the latest idea.
All of a sudden, global temperatures had risen, the polar ice caps were melting, and the ozone is nothing short of destroyed. Once again the evidence is lacking, a lot of it is questionable and the only solution for this is for the fearful citizens of the planet to give up some freedoms in order to combat pollution, CO2 emissions, destruction of resources that may combat the warming... The list does not end.
Since the theory of global warming has seen some challenges from a growing number of scientists, the name has once again changed. Now, as even the EPA's website lists it, it is called "Global Climate Change." Global cooling was proven wrong when we all realized temperatures were not staying cool, global warming was proven wrong when the science did not add up (as will be explored further in this paper), so the only solution for the agencies and government to look to was to rename the same wrong theories of the past with a vague, cover all name that is "Global Climate Change." While it has not been proven global climates are changing, it is vague enough to cover any climate pattern that may seem irregular or unexpected, when in fact chance or timing may be responsible rather than the tragedy of climate change.
Since global cooling has now been dismissed it is not needed to completely debunk that form of climate change, but for global warming, an alarming number of citizens around the world believe in it. In 2007, 82% of Americans believed in global warming, rather stunning considering the fact that a growing number of scientists are voicing opposition to the theory. In 1998 Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine launched a petition for those who have degrees and science qualifications to sign if they are skeptics of the idea of global warming. 32,000 individuals with backgrounds in science signed the petition including over 9,000 with PhD's, far more than the 2,500 scientific reviewers the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in claiming there was a scientific consensus that global warming is real.
With such a consensus, how come the opposition was 12 times larger?
The consensus that all the loyal global warming activists and government officials always talk about just is not there. They want us to believe that the debate is over and now is the time for action, rather than continued research to actually prove it exists. With such a growing opposition, perhaps it is important to actually look at the facts to understand how the theory has come to be attacked as non- plausible and to see what does not add up to cause such disbelief.
To start off with, we should address the question on whether the planet is actually warming. Warming is pretty much defined as an increase in temperature, and global of course means all across the globe. For global warming to be real, then we of course need a warming globe. Common sense really, but then again, common sense might also suggest that the planet is cooling, not warming. For a decade now, 10 years, the planet has experienced cooling (Carter). 1998 was the last year in which warming occurred and since then, including last year the global temperatures have cooled and show no sign of warming this year either.
Temperatures since 2005 have dropped so drastically that all the warming that took place since the 1980's was canceled out. When a devotee to the global warming cause hears these facts they usually say, " 'how silly to judge climate change over such a short period'. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming" (Carter). They also mention that of course some cooling would have to occur when you start tallying after 1998, since 1998 was a record high year. Well they are forgetting to mention that 1998 was such a record high year because it was a El Nino year, which is a natural cycle that leads to higher temperatures. As they forget to mention that, we also ignore the fact that they also use the cooling of 1965 as their base line. Something else to consider is that the warmest year in recent history in North America was in 1934.
Weather has never been constant, so of course temperatures are going to rise and lower over the years. We should consider that "warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialization, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965." Periods of warming and cooling occur naturally, it is not global climate change or global warming, it is called "weather."
As we are deceived and told that the planet is warming, we are also being misled on evidence to support it as well. The most common myth is that the ice caps are melting and our sea level will rise. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that there was an increase of 9.4%, or 390,000 square kilometers of ice coverage in the year 2008 over 2007. Despite these facts we always see photographs of ice caps being split down the middle, suggesting out ice caps are outright being broken up and vanishing.
http://www.greenland.com/media(1181,1033)/Greenland%27s_ice_cap_is_melting.jpg Images like this one mislead the public. It suggests the middle of the ice caps, the point that should be the thickest is being ripped apart due to global warming. However, the fact is that the ice caps are increasing in size. If you notice, the photographs never plot the coordinates of where latitude and longitude of where it was taken. If this was done we would realize the truth. Most of the images we see are actually of ice caps breaking apart near the far edge of the shelf. Due to the thickening of the caps at the poles, ice is pushed north or south, closer to the equator, where the planet is warmer. As the ice approaches warmer seas it obviously warms up as well and the molecules start to speed up, melting the ice. Ice is melting because of the fact that the poles are thickening.
As "scientists" parade around with their false facts of warming and melting ice caps, they can not help but to also announce how we are destroying the coral reefs, polar bears are dying, and according to a 2003 study "published in the journal Nature, colleagues analyzed numerous studies involving wild plant and animals for changes due to global warming. Out of the nearly 1,500 species examined, the researchers found that about 1,200 exhibited temperature-related changes consistent with what scientists would expect if they were being affected by global warming" (Than). Considering the fact that scientists went into the study with assumptions on what the effects were (almost as if they were going to get the results they wanted no matter what they saw), they could not scientifically prove what caused the so-called effects.
Everything we hear concerning global warming has to do with doom and gloom. Ice is melting, sea levels are rising, animals are dying, and life is changing, the only thing we can do to end the chaos, is to take action to end the warming. Despite there being no consensus and no real evidence that this warming exists, what the effects would be if it did exist or whether it could even be reversed, governments and agencies all seem to have ideas to curb our freedoms in the name of saving the world. Why is it that every aspect of our life must be controlled? Not a single thing goes unregulated if global warming exists.
The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (APA) released early in the year would give them the right to place a price tag on greenhouse gas emissions. Not excluded from this taxation of natural processes is our livestock. In New York, "The tax for dairy cows could be 5 per cow, and .50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of per hog," the release said. "Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits" (Poor). This massive tax upon farmers would cost New York farmers alone 0 million dollars a year, effectively harming the American farm industry, giving the global competitors an upper hand and leaving American consumers having to pay the cost (Gregg). Common sense economics will show that as price goes up, demand goes down, effectively regulating how many animals farmers own, and regulating what the consumer buys.
Taxing livestock would not be the only new regulations we see. A popular idea proposed by those inside of the global warming hoax is the introduction of the carbon tax. "A carbon tax would be paid whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay it based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to consumers in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up with gasoline, based on the content of fossil carbon in the fuel" (Schlesinger). Once again, in the name of fighting global warming we have a tax that would force companies to have to raise their prices to consumers if they choose to continue running business the way they were. As companies are essentially blackmailed into investing their money in "green technologies" to find ways to reduce emissions, the consumer is left to foot the bill. This tax is nothing but telling companies what to invest in or telling them they must raise the price upon the consumer. It is a regulative policy that strips away freedoms from investors, consumers and companies to supposedly curb the carbon emissions that is causing a warming that has not even been proven to exist.
Global warming although never proven, is already gaining ground in the taxation side of regulation. The regulation will not end there though. In California all new car models as of 2009 must display a label that states its "global warming score." While lawmakers claim it is suppose to be about public awareness, "a law endorsed by the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations" (Greenbiz). The car regulation is not ending with just labeling society and adding expenses, in 2002 California led the way with forcing companies to produce certain cars. Assembly Bill 1493 is currently facing legal challenges from auto makers who are quite frankly, not satisfied with having the freedom to manufacture cars of their choosing removed. Instead of making cars that consumers demand as the free market determines, they are now being legally forced to make cars that "reduce global warming emissions" (California Clean Car Campaign). The free market deciding how cars should be made makes sense, the people want it, they demand it. California, along with other states now considering such laws, have chosen to strip away the free out of market and is now even regulating what type of car we drive.
To many paying a few extra dollars or driving a certain car is not a big deal as long as we combat global warming. Those ones usually do not realize how far the regulation can go though. If the planet is in danger, with ecosystems out of order, climate irregular, food supply being cut off and entire cities vanishing beneath the rising water, there is nothing that could be said to prevent the government and their agencies from regulating other parts of our life too in order to save us from ourselves. Karen Coshof, producer of "The Great Warming," said in a Cybercast News Service interview, "Population is the underlying problem - the catalyst for [global warming]" (Randall). Now, what is the way to combat the "underlying problem?" The answer would be population control. Most are offended when they hear of the Chinese laws setting limits on children for families, with heavy taxation and fines for having too many children, but yet segments of the global warming activists in America advocate population control, and we can only ask ourselves how soon it will be before legislation is put up to a vote as well.
One of the most famous regulative policies concerning global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. "The protocol's implementation will require such heavy-handed regulation that Andrei Illarionov, the senior economic adviser to President Vladimir Putin who opposed Russia's ratification of Kyoto, sees it as a recrudescence of the command economy. Appealing last week to Mr Blair to listen more to informed sceptics, he asked: "Have there been any international agreements to limit economic growth and development before Kyoto? Yes, there were two: Communism and Nazism." As a matter of fact, many economists have determined that Kyoto would cost America billions of dollars. Japan alone would be out 0 billion to cut emissions 12 times (only once) (Johnson). Through regulative policies that would determine what can and can not be produced, how it can and can not be produced, what jobs we can and can not have, what companies can and can not succeed, what investors lose or gain, it is comforting to know that Kyoto would have only reduced global temperatures by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. So much regulation to control global warming, and like the existence of global warming, the results of Kyoto will just not exist.
We have been raised to believe in global warming. It is in out schools, media, movies, and our professors love to espouse it. They would have us believe that global warming is indeed a scientific consensus, all while constantly changing the name of the climate theory, but yet a growing number of skeptics are speaking out and the evidence to support the so-called warming is just not there. When you combine that with the fact that everything about the theory of global warming just coincidently allows the government and other agencies to control and regulate all aspects of our life, you have the workings of a fraud.
If global warming it to exist in our mind, they can raise our taxes, tell us what animals to own, raise prices on livestock, rise the prices of consumer goods, tell us what industries succeed or fail, determine what investments make money or not, regulate what we drive and take away companies freedom to manufacture based upon the free market, and even go as far as regulate our breeding. Not a single aspect of our life will be spared from regulation in some manner. We as a society have already stated that we would be willing to give up our freedoms to fight global warming if it threatened us. They already have us convinced that it exists, now the only thing left is for the threat to be highlighted. The science and history is against global warming, giving us citizens a hope that the world will open their eyes and see global warming as a regulative fraud.
Find More
Global Warming International Center Articles
