Global Warming

I have fought with my self about the best way to present this information. The story from the socialists and those duped by them changes all of the time. Sometimes I think a timeline would be good (and I’ll try to incorporate that), other times I think just adding the latest news is enough, but you need to be able to compare what is being said today with what was said yesterday, last year, last decade and the previous decades to really understand what they are trying to do.

In the end, I guess I will just do the best I can for now by covering new information in blog posts, but also incorporating them here as well. I’ve decided on a mixed approach talking about my philosophy regarding Global Warming first, then talking about current events, then going back and giving you some history. The historical perspective is very important and might work its way into all aspects of the page and blog, it’s just hard to avoid becoming too redundant. The Global Warming activists, I’m sure, have incorporated that into their strategy – they keep pounding us with the same false generalization and other claims trying to wear us down, it gets old, but then so does our argument against them. I think they figure that as long as they have the media on their side they can win this long drawn out war of attrition. My hope is that they don’t.

I also know I run a risk of making this page too long – that you will get tired of reading and go onto something else. PLEASE DON’T. Read it in chunks if you must, but please try to get the whole context if you really want to understand what is, is not and possibly is, going on.

Global Warming – Political Roots

The current environmental movement became a tool of the Leftists/Socialists/Communists/Progressives/Liberals/Statists (Chose your title – they have become nearly interchangeable in the past few years) in this country in the 60’s (Maybe sooner, but I’m not concerned enough to try to trace it to Woodrow Wilson :)). The first Earth Day (V.I. Lenin’s Birthday) in 1970 helped exemplify it. The Leftists decided the best way to destroy Capitalism was to regulate business to the extent that it would be virtually under government control, and what better way than to impose insanely strict environmental standards.  It was a simple plan. Preach doom and gloom all over the country, convince the people that the planet was about to be destroyed if we didn’t change our way of life. Only the prosperous countries of the West (Primarily the United States – but Western Europe as well) came under attack.

Of course in the 70’s it was Global Cooling. but by the early 80’s (probably if we did around long enough we will find that under Nixon and Ford we were destroying the Earth with Cooling, then Jimmy Carter fixed it from 1977-1980, Then Reagan started destroying the climate with Warming. 🙂 )

The movement was soon firmly entrenched in the liberal curriculum of our Nation’s Universities. Almost any poli-sci class that dealt with the United States was sure to have a section on the environment. When I entered the University of Utah in the Summer of 1985, the first topic discussed in my Poli-Sci. 110 – American Institutions class, was “What are we doing to the Environment”. This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s been around for decades and unfortunately has worked its way into the “common knowledge”of our younger generations, to our detriment.

It took a few years (and the fall of the Soviet Union) for the International Communist Movement to catch on to the idea though . I suppose the main problem was the filth that exists in the Communist countries of Eastern Europe and Asia, but they did finally come around.  They soon were following the lead of the “Greens” in Germany, Green Peace, and a myriad of other American groups. In 1991, when the Belgian Communist Party dissolved itself, they declared that the best way for them to gain their socialist goals was to disband the Party and get involved in the environmental movement. Gorbachev (Who, despite his attempts at reform, never denounced Communism.) founded the Green Cross International in 1993.

They have stayed on this path since.

We must re-engineer our society (lower our standard of living and become more socialist under the control of the UN) to save the planet. We should kill jobs to kowtow to the political correctness of the global warming crowd.

Global Warming – Global Climate Change – The Climate Crises
(Choose your favorite name – over the last few weeks the popular phrase is anthropogenic global warming [which I’m sure they started using to try to sound smarter] which just means man-made.)

According to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, the first known use of the term “Global Warming” was in 1969. They define Global Warming as: an increase in the earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.

If you look up Global Cooling, you get this: The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

But I clearly remember my elementary school teachers telling me about how the Earth was cooling and we were heading toward a new ice age – because of man. (Links and articles about this will follow in the History section)

The fear mongers of Global Cooling were also the people who were pushing the evil of Population control in the 70’s, and then in the 80’s they switched to Global Warming, and have continued on with their lies about the need for population control.

Population Control as an arm of the Global Warming lie

One of the top advocates of Population Control and Eco-fearmongering in general was Paul Erlich – what an evil man. His book the Population Bomb is enough to convict this idiot of crimes against humanity.

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.” – Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968),

Six years later, in The End of Affluence, he and his wife Anne, increased his death toll estimate suggesting that a billion or more could die from starvation by the mid-1980s,(bringing the population to 1.5 billion which might be sustainable). there would be food riots in the United States and by 1985, Ehrlich predicted, the world would enter a genuine era of scarcity. He said India couldn’t feed 200 million people (The population is now over 1.1 billion), and that by 1979 their population would start dieing off, he also said he would bet even odds that England would no longer exist by the year 2000.

In 2009, Ehrlich was still defending this garbage saying “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future” and believe that it achieved their goals because “it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.  (Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development) PDF

Despite his outlandish, inaccurate claims, he is STILL a hero to the environmentalists. (And still predicting catastrophe – This from January of 2013) But stopping children from being born was his goal, and in the West we are approaching or have already reached zero population growth in most countries. So, maybe if you lie loud enough and often enough, you can still get your goals accomplished.

Just keep changing the name – it’s harder to hit a moving target.

Brief History

This is a short (and admittedly incomplete) history of using the climate to scare people into conforming to totalitarian desires.

Here are a few Examples:

We could go all the way back to the late 18th century and Thomas R. Malthus. Malthus made similar arguments in his “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1798). Of course in Malthus’ time there was no American Ingenuity changing the world yet.

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975
NASA warned of human caused coming ‘ice age’ in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007
1975 New York Times: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, May 21, 1975
1974 Time Magazine: “Another Ice Age,” June 24, 1974
1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age” – CIA Feared Global Cooling

Here are a couple good articles about some of the top eco-fearmongers of the day.

And a couple of articles to read – 1 2

Of course Global Cooling didn’t go away easily – in the 1980s and 1990s volcanic eruptions were going to freeze the globe. Then they added that Global Warming was going to cause Global Cooling! Then they made a movie on that stupid premise in 2004. (This became a common tactic – everything that happened in the world is caused by man-made pollution. Warming, cooling – everything but a perfect day I suppose.

The 70’s also saw the creation of the Endangered Species Act, which over the years has become worse and worse, and more and more of a tool of the Left to stop economic progress. The current Endangered Species list has over 10,000 animals and 9,000 plants.

One of the animals really exploited by the environmentalists are the Polar Bears – This author who went to show how sad it was that Polar Bears are dieing off – but they aren’t, so he was surprised.

The mid-80s also saw the “discovery” of the “Ozone Hole.” After a few years they had to admit it wasn’t really a hole (though they still call it that), and that it was actually an annual cycle. In all of their hype, they neglected to tell the public that ozone was created by sunlight and the only way to really destroy the ozone layer would be to put out the sun. (I’ll try to dedicate a page to this later)

The Environmental movement became a part of the popular culture in the late 80s and early 90s, and I must admit it struck really close to hope in the early 90’s when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints started running radio and TV spots with an environmental theme.  It caused me to write this letter to the Church:

Dear First Presidency,

   As a faithful member of the Church, I enjoy very much the Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that the Church produces and distributes.  However, I have been seriously troubled about a new PSA that I have heard on the radio.  The PSA is concerning the environment and  environmental issues.  I have a grave concern about this issue and would appreciate an explanation on the Church’s views on modern environmentalism.
   There are a few issues I would like to raise concerning this particular PSA.   The main  problem I have is not the message of the commercial, it is the whole problem of Environmentalism.  I fear that this PSA may send a potentially damaging signal to some members of the Church.
   The Church has recently encouraged its members to donate to worthy charities  outside of the Church Welfare Program and has told the members they should support worthwhile organizations.  I fear that some members of the Church may feel the need to join Environmental groups and will  feel encouraged to do so by this PSA.
   Many people would ask “What’s wrong with that?”  That seems a legitimate question.  After all, they just want to protect the planet and are we not told to be stewards of the Earth?  While I would agree that we need not unnecessarily pollute the planet, we are far from  powerful enough to be able to “destroy” the planet (If one doubts this,  consider that Mt. Pinatubo emitted more debris into the atmosphere than all  of humanity during our time on the Earth).  I would also strongly argue that a large majority of environmental organizations do not have “saving” the planet as their primary objective.  I sincerely believe contrarily.  These groups are consciously seeking after the  destruction of  Capitalism and the downfall of this nation.  Perhaps some Environmentalists can make this argument for me better than I can:
   Stewart  Brand,  writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue: “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt free at last.”
   Helen Caldicott, Australian pediatrician  and author of several books on the Environment and Nuclear Energy, speaking for the Union of Concerned Scientists:  “Scientists who work for nuclear power or  nuclear  energy have sold their soul to the devil.  They are either dumb, stupid,  or highly compromised…. Free enterprise really means rich people get richer.   And they have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.”
   Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist:  “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the  United States.  Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.”
    David Foreman,  author of A Field Guide to Monkey Wrenching and Ecodefense (A guide detailing field-tested hints from experts on how to decommission heavy equipment,  close roads,  stop off-road vehicles, spike trees and much more!)  and founder of Earth First!: “We must… reclaim the roads and the plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions and tens of millions of [acres of] presently settled land.”
   Where are the people on this land to go?  We’ll discuss their attempts at population control later. 
   From the group Ecotage,  an offshoot of Earth First!:  “We must make this an insecure  and  uninhabitable place for capitalists and their projects. This is the best contribution we can make towards protecting the earth and struggling for a liberating society.”
   Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace:  “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds,  I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
   Thomas Lovejoy,  tropical biologist and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution: “The Planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease.”
   I honestly do not think that we, who are created in God’s image, are the scourge of the Earth.
   I have also been taught that scientists should base their recommendations on facts and remain unbiased in their assessment of them, however it appears that some “environmentally concerned” scientists do not feel the same way.
   Jonathan Schell, author of Our Fragile Earth:  “Now, in a widening sphere of decisions,  the costs of error are  so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone,  which is to say on prediction alone.   It follows  that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced.  But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on.  Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to  forestall  predicted perils,  even while knowing that they may never materialize.  We must take action, in a manner of speaking,  to preserve our ignorance.   There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real.”  (emphasis added)
  Richard Benedick, an employee from the State Department working on assignment  for the  Conservation Foundation:   “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
  Stephen Schneider, proponent of the theory that CFCs are depleting the ozone:   “[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios,  make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have.  Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
   A spokesman for the Government Accountability Project, an offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies:  “Let’s face it.  We don’t want safe nuclear power plants.  We want NO nuclear power plants.”
It is also  contemptible  to me how environmentalists have attempted to devalue human life.  Paul Ehrlich, whom we have already mentioned,  the author of  The Population Bomb, wrote in his book:
   “[T]he battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines.  Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.  Population Control is the only answer.”
   Ehrlich gained a large following in the 60s and 70s, and he continues to predict doom and gloom to this day.   His global famine of 1985 never happened,  yet he now says the population of the United States will shrink from its present  250 million to about 22.5 million by 1999 because of famine and global warming.
 He is still recommending reduction of the population by force, saying:
     “Several coercive proposals deserve serious consideration, mainly because we will ultimately have to resort to them, unless current trends in birth rates are revised.”
   What are these “coercive proposals” for the United States?  Well, they include deindustrialization, liberalized abortion, and tax breaks for people who have themselves sterilized.  We must take this man seriously because he has a large following in the environmental movement.
   Kenneth Boulding,  originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept:  “The right to have children should be a marketable commodity,  bought and traded by individuals but  absolutely limited by the state.”
   From the Earth First! newsletter:  “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.   It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism,  which is the main force behind the environmental crises.”
   More from David Brower of Friends of the Earth:   “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license….All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government  issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for  childbearing.”                                                   
   Since  there are members of the Church worldwide, we can’t only look at American environmental groups.   Prince Philip of the United Kingdom, leader of the World Wildlife Fund,  stated recently that,  were he to be reincarnated,  he would wish to return as a “killer virus to lower human population levels.”   Clearly, his royal highness is not fond of people.  In its annual report, the World Wildlife Fund laid out its goals, and included this statement:  “Increasing [human] population causes a drain on natural resources, which is geometric, not arithmetic….Science cannot be expected to supplant the vital processes of nature.”
   On December 28, 1988, the respected London weekly The Economist, editorialized:   “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable,  but a good thing…. This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant,  but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.”
   Speaking for the Green Party of West Germany, Carl Amery has said:  “We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of  a  forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of  6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”
   Perhaps it has taken me much to long to make my point, but I do want it to be clear that this is a legitimate concern of mine.  The Church has tried to stay out of most political battles,  and the battle over the Environment is VERY political.   I feel that the environmental movement of this age, going back to the first Earth Day (to commemorate V.I. Lenin’s birthday) and beyond has been so.  The radical Left in the world has sought to destroy Capitalism and Freedom under the guise of caring for the planet.   I do not want to see the Lord’s church become an instrument in these people’s hands.
   It is my sincerest desire to help all members of the church realize the potential for evil that lies in today’s environmental movement.  We must stop their attempts at population control, and attempts to destroy our Constitution and the freedoms it affords us.

“There comes a time, we must decide,
if we’ll reach for higher ground.
And turn our lives around.
Now is the time, this is the hour.”

This quote from the beginning  of the  PSA  would seem far more appropriate coming from the Church of Jesus Christ if it were a call to repentance and an Ensign to the world to prepare for the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior,  Jesus Christ.  I feel that the Church has put together some terrific PSAs in the past and that this one may simply be a little off focus.  This is not meant as a criticism, only an observation. Please accept it in the spirit intended. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Now, I can’t claim that my letter stopped the ads, but I only heard the radio ad run 2-3 times and the saw the TV ad twice (as I recall). I have a feeling the Church got many similar letters.

President Faust responded to me, reiterating that the Lord had not rescinded D&C 104:17 – For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. 

I will try to find the letters we exchanged on this topic for more input if it is pertinent.

That letter was written over 20 years ago, and the environmental whackos have just continued making the same arguments over and over again. In 1988, Ted Danson said the oceans would be destroyed in 10 years (that, of course, passed 15 years ago). But that’s okay on January 27, 2006 Al Gore said we only have 10 years left (again), so we’ll all die in less than 3 years. Rush has had a countdown on his website since the announcement, so we can all remember.

Now, the Secretary of State goes to China and tells them that Man-Made global warming the top priority of our country.

The truth is after 40 years of cooling, there was slight warming from 1980 to 1996, but there has been no change in the average for 16 years. Apparently Global Warming is on hold and they are scrambling to explain it. Kind of like when they had to try to make up crap to cover themselves over the Hocky Stick Hoax and the email scandal when the scientists were forced to admit they were making up stuff to try to defend the Global Warming theory.

Whether heating or cooling … is there anything we can do about it? I would argue, no. The history of the world has shown extreme decades of freezing – including possible total freezing of the whole face of the planet, there is also evidence of the whole planet being tropical, and both of these long before man was on the Earth, so how did that happen? How naive we must be to think we could destroy the planet.

I think this quote of Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton (As read by Charlton Heston on the Rush Limbaugh Show in 1995) sums it up well. I remember hearing it live and knew it was an instant classic:

“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multi-cellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”

One major problem – Flawed computer models

As I’ve already stated there has been no change in the average in 16 years, which defies all of the computer models. The problem is, computer models reflect the bias of the programmer. If you program it to assume rising temperatures, guess what … it predicts rising temperatures. Imagine that!

Then they take guesses at the past and compare it to solid data and wonder why the patterns in the solid data don’t flow like their guesses? Global temperatures readings within fractions of a degree, from thousands of years before man existed? Sure those are going to be so dead-on accurate!

Even their flawed models seem to pale in comparison to their over-exaggeration of the past statistics. Part of their problem seems to be that they want to pretend that the sun doesn’t play any role in the temperature on Earth. Maybe they’ll start to acknowledge it.

What they really like to do, in the public sphere (since the little people are just to stupid to understand) is ignore the truth and make stuff up. Obama just spouts false claims every time he talks about this stuff, and here Dr. Timothy Ball takes him down point by point.

Good News

Despite all of the hype from the leftist media, the American People realize there are far more pressing issues. Global Warming is near the bottom of the list (along with gay marriage).

It is also funny how every year we seem to get at least one of these.

Even some liberals can admit that the whole global warming scare has been blown out of proportion. Even if it gets them in trouble with their leftist buddies.

And the realization that this has all been a hoax is coming more into the mainstream of thought.

Recent Idiocy

In his most recent State of the Union Obama was still pushing for Cap and Trade or a Carbon Tax (calling these “market-based” – what a load of Cruces!) and other environmental nonsense.

More Ice in Antarctica means global warming. It’s interesting to note they used to claim that the “ozone whole” (See the History section above) was going to cause the Antarctic to melt and flood us all. That’s why they banned Chlorofluorocarbons.

Despite the fact that there has not been any increase in temperature since 2000, nor is there evidence for temperature extremes – that’s just retarded. But …

Everything is caused by global warming – that way, no matter what happens, we can blame it on global warming. Too many tornadoes or a record low number – it’s all global warming.

Remember when CNN asked if asteroids were caused by Global Warming? Or when earthworms became enemies of the planet?

In Australia, a radio show host was ordered to be brainwashed because he doesn’t follow the government line on Global Warming.

“Scientists” in Iowa say, “Iowa should lead innovation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improve resilience in agriculture and communities, and move towards greater energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy.” And that’s going to make it rain?

The government needs to take millions of acres “to ease the pressure of global warming on plants, fish and animals” What kind of idiocy is that? And where exactly in the Constitution is this?

The Socialists in Europe have been trying to get shorter work weeks for decades (a topic for my Economics or Communism blog). Now, that’s how we can save the planet – work less, have less money, save the planet!

Al Gore thinks it needs to be in our face all of the time (Like it’s not already? The video isn’t worth watching – do so at the risk of your sanity)

Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser under the late prime minister Margaret Thatcher was thrown out of a UN Summit for telling the truth about Global Warming. Then they (The UN) blamed their failure to regulate us death on him.

The biggest threat to our country, militarily, is … global warming? Even more dangerous than a nuclear North Korea?

The idiocy of Common Core is infecting our schools (See my Education blog for more information on Common Core) The supporters are so glad that for the first time middle schoolers will be required to learn about man-made climate change, and high schoolers must understand that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature.”

So if you turn down Common Core, and get stuck with CSCOPE you get the same garbage.

I already blogged about Earth Hour 2013 – but it’s worth repeating and expanding on:

“The world is using the equivalent of one and a half planets to support life on Earth.  Earth Hour was born out of a hope that this could change.”

And this “statistic” was pulled out of whose butt? How many planets were in the survey? What in the heck to they even mean? We are using as much energy as one and a half other planets? Which ones? Or are we sucking in other planets and “using” one and a half of them? This simply doesn’t make sense – unfortunately it makes about as much sense as everything else they say.

What a bunch of idiots!