The Truth About Global Warming And Hillary Care

Somebody needs to tell the global warming crew to send a little global warmth to Indiana. Today the wind chill was -20 (and I work outside). When I was a kid there was an ensuing ice age (before it changed to global warming). Over the years these (same) fear mungers have made multiple billions $ $ $ $ in the arena of fear exploitation.

I have often wondered why nations who are not free, who have exceedingly high Co2 emissions (Can you say CHINA?) are never cited by the world community. Yet the US is always under extreme scrutiny. Why? Could it be because we're FREE? (at least we are for now).

Last year our C02 emissions were reduced dramatically. A few years ago the global community almost had a conniption fit because we (the US) refused to join Kioto. A few months ago ALL of the nations who joined Kioto were subjected to international fines costing billions of dollars per nation for failing to lower their co2 emissions to appropriate levels.

Not one nation was able to meet these benchmarks; because these benchmarks are virtually impossible to meet, especially on a consistent basis.

Folks, it's time for us to unite and quit being used as political pawns. Global warming is a natural phenomena that's been going on for centuries. According to reliable scientific evidence global warming is caused by the sun. Co2 emissions do not cause global warming; they are a result of global warming. Every nation who joined Kioto will now pay dearly through the raising of their taxes. This is nothing more than an international shakedown. It's pure socialism veiled in an unproven dogma about wanting to save the planet.

In the communist manifesto, in order to control large masses of people a government(s) must do two basic things: disarm the public (That's why when you hear about gun control "we need to get more guns off of the streets in order to reduce crime rates," said the politician; they NEVER EVER address the fact that criminals DON'T obey laws.

That's because public safety is not the real issue. The real underlying issue is 3 simple words: restriction-of-freedoms.). The second thing a government must do in order to control large masses of people is to control the flow of money. The more of your money the government has means the more control the government has over you. Remember our country was founded upon the precepts of a severe injustice known as "taxation without representation." That's right! Spending YOUR MONEY has always been a big deal as far as the government is concerned! That's the true underlying theme behind Hillary Care, gun control, tax hikes, man made global warming. etc... That's why nations such as China get a free pass even though their C02 emissions are astronomical.

Folks, we've got to wake up! Does anyone out there really believe that our politicians have the right to take more of our money? Does anyone believe that they have been handling our money in such a responsible fashion that they deserve more of it? If you do then I most certainly have nothing more to say to you concerning this matter. GOOD BYE! (at least for now).

When politicians talk about the national deficit, they're the ones who caused it. When you hear them talking about a possible recession guess who caused it? That's right! They did. Since 2002 they have had an absolute field day spending our money without any real restraints. Now the national deficit is equivalent to each American citizen owing the government 0,000 per citizen. The solution so far has been to keep on borrowing from China (our good socialist friends). If the government doesn't cap spending quickly this could prove to be very dangerous, especially as China's economy continues to grow in record proportions. Besides if our politicians got their out of control spending under control... (Note: Do you hear any of the candidates talking about spending caps? Of course not. Although some are talking about raising taxes even in lieu of a possible oncoming recession. Now what sense does that make? The government will give us a portion of our money back in the form of a stimulus package in order to avoid a recession, but then some of the same candidates who support the stimulus package want to turn around and take our money right back again in the form of a severe tax hike.). The truth is that people like Hillary Clinton would not have to sheepishly admit (like she did the other day) that she intends to garnish our wages (That's right! And you will have no say so in the matter whatsoever) in order to pay for her socialized health care plan. If Ms Clinton would just introduce a bill (no pun intended) that would cap government spending, in a few years she would have more than enough money to pay for her socialized health care plan (to the tune of 6 hundred billion $ $ $ $ per year). But then again, it's just like global warming. Her health care package has nothing to do with helping people. It's all about getting her elected, as well as giving the government more power & control over our lives (alias: a restriction of our freedoms).

Folks, don't be fooled any longer! There are solutions out there to every problem we face but, we, the people, have to quit buying in to these crazy socialist notions, protocols and ideas. We could end this silliness very quickly if we would just rise up and quit being willfully deceived.

Now the earth is going into another cooling period. So what does that tell you about (man-made) global warming? Are you going to be the next political pawn (alias: SUCKER) for the next money making socialist agenda that comes along? Brrrrrr! It's getting awfully cold! Feel the chill? Folks, the choice is yours. PEACE BE STILL!

Global Warming - Truth or Tale?

No matter where you are, no matter the time of day, no matter the weather, it seems you can find someone talking about it. Recently it was at the grocery store. Two checkers couldn't agree. Global warming? Or not? Still stinging from the recent cold crunch, my vote was with the not. But what is true? Certainly the mainstream media is no help.

I must admit, I am a skeptic. After all, as Kenneth Chilton, director of the Institute for the Study of Economics and the Environment said, "These guys are going to try to tell you what the climate's going to be like in 2100, and the weatherman can't tell you what it's going to be like in five days. Weather is simple compared to climate. Let's get real here." 1

Yet the Associated Press continues to print headlines such as, "Climate report warns of droughts, starvation, disease." In fact, reporter Seth Borenstein prophesies, "Tens of millions .

. . will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels. . . Tropical diseases will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive." 2 [emphasis mine]

Not until later does Mr. Borenstein regain some realism adding the term, 'could.' Why? What is his basis? His purpose? A dose of reality? A well-crafted rumor?

Can't we trust the news? Don't they present the 'facts'? If so, why the sensationalism? The contradictions? The mud-slinging?

A good example of today's conflicting propaganda is revealed in the comparison of two recent 'news' reports. Canada Free Press, which calls itself Canada's Fast Growing Independent News Source, presents one side.

A guest essay by Ross Gelbspan, posted on 'The Grist', a website dedicated to environment news and commentary, expounds the other.

Ross, a 30-year journalism veteran, maintains the pace of global warming has kicked into overdrive. He claims, "the hollow optimism of climate activists, along with the desperate responses of some of the world's most prominent climate scientists, is preventing us from focusing on the survival requirements of the human enterprise." He contends we have "failed to meet nature's deadline."3

Miguel A. Guanipa, reporter for the Canada Free Press, disagrees. He says, '. . . no consensus is to be found among the 400 scientists that are listed on [the U.S. Senate Committee] report, other than the nearly unanimous agreement that the claim of Global Warming as a legitimate threat to humanity is more an ideological juggernaut than a proven scientific certainty . . .' 4

But, Ross goes on to say, "within the last two years, a number of leading scientists . . . have all declared that humanity is about to pass or already has passed a "tipping point" in terms of global warming. The IPCC, which reflects the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, recently stated that it is "very unlikely" that we will avoid the coming era of "dangerous climate change." "5

Wait! Aren't they the same group who, in 2001, said we could expect the world's oceans to rise as much as 35 inches. But, in their 2007 report, reduced their forecast to 16.5 inches? 6

Mr. Guanipa contends, '[The 400 scientists'] consensus is based in the scientifically verifiable notion that . . . periodic Hemispheric warming (and cooling) of the earth are natural cyclical phenomena, caused primarily by fluctuations in the sun's electro-magnetic radiation, water vapor, and a host of other culprits meaner than the rise in carbon dioxide levels, which is actually an effect rather than a cause of warming. This natural cycle has taken place - and will continue to take place - over millennia. This means that the net impact that man - in all his industrial fury - has over any significant climate variations, is no more distinguishable - as a contributing former meteorologist puts it - than a "fart in a hurricane".'7

400 scientists? Why don't we hear more about them? According to the Canada Free Press, they feel their voices are being suppressed, their opinions ridiculed, and their jobs threatened. "They also contend that stripped of its thin veneer of scientific legitimacy, the theory of A.G.W. is nothing more than an ideological doctrine, and a dangerous one at that. . . [which stifles] healthy debate . . . on an issue that could have serious and lasting global economic and social repercussions."8

Still Mr. Gelbspan persists, 'This slow-motion collapse of the planet leaves us with the bitterest kind of awakening . . . For anyone anywhere who truly absorbs this reality and all that it implies, this realization leads into the deepest center of grief . . . There needs to be a vision that accommodates both the truth of the coming cataclysm and the profoundly human need for a sense of future.'9

This leaves one reeling. Is this just a war of words? Is it a spitting match? A power play? One has to wonder. Especially when one reads some of the comments on Mr. Gelbspan's commentary. One worker in the Environmental Protection field who has a science and mathematics background said, "I have studied this issue for many years, reading everything I can find on the subject, including all the IPCC reports (not just the executive summaries). I have yet to come across any credible evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2, man-made or otherwise, is causing global warming. To the contrary, all of the research-backed theories that seem to explain past climate changes have nothing to do with CO2. . . .So far, all this hype appears, in my view, to be based on computer models that are seriously flawed.' 10

It is enough to make one cry. Not only is this controversy, regardless of who is right, throwing a bad light on the scientific community, fueling the fires of controversy, separating friends, and making reporters sound like fools, but it is downright depressing.

One wonders how many people echo this reader's comment, "the future is going to s- - -, we just don't know how badly." Or this one, "This article kind of makes me want to go home, eat a handful of Xanax and stare at a wall for a while." Or even this one, "What the h- - - am I supposed to do now?" 11

What we don't need is more sloppy science, weeping politicians, false accusations, and blind denial. Pure and honest reporting from the mainstream press would be a great start. However, whether an environmentalist, Christian, or unconcerned citizen, everyone has a responsibility to their environment. What we do will effect future generations.