“Climate Change” – the Central Issue

I’ve often thought that the one thing sure to bring the world together would be a verified visitation by interplanetary aliens. The old line, “Take me to your leader,” suggests an Earth with a single leader under a global government. It’s clear that those who envision global governance and work daily to achieve that utopian goal are out of luck when it comes to alien encounters. There are just too many UFO deniers to make an alien threat stick in the public consciousness. What to do, then?

Since the ancient advent of totalitarianism, a standard technique for gaining control of a people was to create an enemy for all to unite against.  Hitler, for example, used “the Jews” to this effect, blaming them for the economic depressions that Germans had endured. For good measure, he included little people, homosexuals, “gypsies,” etc., anyone who would sully the gene pool of the super race.

More recently, enterprising leftists bent on the furtherance of their one-world philosophy were able to create another enemy with which to herd the populace. This time it’s not another group of people, it’s global warming (now, for political reasons, characterized as “climate change,” or “climate extremes.”) We ourselves became the enemy; try to escape from that!  We, it was claimed, were to blame for creating conditions that, like alien death rays, would turn the whole earth into an uninhabitable  rock.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) was the problem. The EPA declared it a pollutant. Apparently, with industrialization, we had started a process that would inexorably heat the earth with horrific consequences. The polar ice caps and glaciers around the world would melt quickly and raise the level of the oceans.  Cities like New York and Amsterdam would shortly be up to their knees in bath water.  It was not a good time to be buying waterfront property.   

It was not too late, however. If we were willing to take steps to thwart ourselves, we could reduce our carbon footprints and save the earth. Any number of seers and prophets explained how we could spare ourselves the horror of a warmer planet. The UN, as the most likely candidate for Global Governor, sprang into action and created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). No less a personage than Albert Gore wrote a book and produced a movie for which he was generously rewarded with an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize. To stress the seriousness of the threat, Gore said “Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.” 
An Inconvenient Truth – 2006

Gore, like Chicken Little, was not alone. Innumerable scientists, politicians, journalists, educators, celebrities, business leaders, students, and soccer moms were so sure of his ability to predict the future that they flocked to his cause. So many, in fact, that Gore boldly claimed that there was no more debate on the subject. The science was settled, he said. Since then, though, that claim has been seriously and increasingly challenged by numerous reputable scientists. The IPCC has been shown by an independent audit not to use all peer-reviewed science. In fact, contributors to IPCC reports have been shown to be less than the claimed “top scientists in the field.” Some of them were even caught lying about climate. Computer models predicting climate changes have proven unreliable.Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation stated, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy. Dr. Ivar Glaever, 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over their claim that evidence for the global warming theory was “incontrovertible.” Dissenters like him, of which there are many, have received scant coverage. But, like it or not, the debate is not over. 

Why, then, do we act as if it were? Well most of us aren’t scientists and only “know” what we read in the papers. The newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet (devoted as they are to the sensational) repeat propaganda that characterizes this highly speculative theory as though it were gospel. Some have gone as far as to worship Gaia, the primordial Earth-goddess of ancient Greek religion. Dissenters are routinely dismissed as shills who have been paid off by “big oil.” Meanwhile one has to dig deep to find mention of academic “believers”, who fear the loss of grants, tenure, and career if they don’t play along with well-placed proponents of the climate change charade. Even those, like economist Bjorn Lomborg, who accept some degree of global warming as real, argue that we are not responding appropriately. Lomborg, for example, points out that the thousands of people who died in one severe heat wave in England are far outnumbered by those who die from cold almost every year. Heat or cold — guess which statistics get the most press coverage.

In the U.S.A., our government has taken the human-caused global warming theory as a pretext for forcing all sorts of drastic changes upon us. A partial list includes the following:

• bribing people to buy electric/hybrid cars that they otherwise would not consider buying.

• forcing automobile mileage (“Cafe”) standards as part of the campaign to reduce emissions of CO2, a naturally occurring gas. 

• investing taxpayer money in solar businesses, turning every taxpayer  unwittingly into a venture capitalist with all the risks that that enterprise typically entails.

• requiring the use of fluorescent light bulbs that produce illumination that some find undesirable and contain mercury which is unacceptable in fish, but apparently just fine in a device that sits in every room in your house. Recycling these bulbs requires extra care.

• sponsoring cap and trade programs, schemes that treat carbon as if it were a commodity to be bought and sold. The fact that countries the size of China and India continue to increase carbon emissions seems of less concern than wood burning stoves.

• fostering “Sustainable Development” (part of the UN’s Agenda 21) by which communities, states, and counties are fooled into surrendering their autonomy to centralized regional control in the hands of one-worlders, again in the name of maximizing our response to a speculative theory that has been refuted by well-respected scientists.

• stopping construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, limiting licensing for domestic oil drilling, and taking other steps to prevent our independence from foreign oil sources.

Having said all this, let me add that if a person voluntarily, in response to his own cost-benefit analysis, decides to cover his roof with solar panels, erects a wind turbine on his farm, commutes to work in a tiny car or installs fluorescent lighting in his living room, I’m all for it. Such decisions, over time, can produce real technological progress. But that progress will be gradually evolutionary and won’t impose unnecessary sacrifices and hardships on the citizens of the land of the free.

Debunking the global warming pseudo-science that underlies so much of our domestic policy-making should be the central concern of all informed citizens and legislators.

Dwight Boud © 2012  




%d bloggers like this: