Global Warming – Hoax or Scam?

Hoax – to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

Scam – a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

Which would be the better word in describing this political movement of man caused global warming?  It would appear that both words are operative, although hoax seems to capture it a bit better.

The proper term for “global warming” is “anthropogenic global warming” (APGW) or as some warmers have attempted to cover all their bases, anthropogenic climate change (APCC) (aka B.S.).  “Anthropogenic” means “of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature.”  I will use the simple term “global warming” to mean, in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, that Global Warming exists- temperatures are rising and that this rise in temperature is being cause by mankind’s liberation of Carbon Dioxide.

What at first, back in the 1980’s, seemed just like another laughable liberal scam to scare as many people as possible that few would embrace as true has now become the most important “cause” of the democrat party and western liberals in general.  By the constant torrent of lies and deceptions liberals have, over the past 30 years, managed to manipulate the minds of a great number of citizens living in the west.  The scam or hoax is almost strictly a western phenomenon as non-democratic nations, whose scientists and leaders know better, see no benefit to advancing the hoax other than to the extent it will damage the highly advanced western nations, especially the United States and inducing the western nations to “pony up” and pay them “climate reparations” in the form of billions of our tax dollars.

Last fall, Vladimir Putin stated the global warming movement was a “fraud”.  After having Russian scientists undertake an extensive study, reviewing the data and considering the positions from all sides, they concluded that “we found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited, it became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”

I’ll admit that a nation very dependent on its abundant fossil fuels for its economy as well as its own energy needs may be very biased but nevertheless, their conclusions shouldn’t be dismissed.  Sure, Russia has a bias against the proposition, but our liberals certainly have more than a bias in favor of it.  Bias one way or another really has nothing to do with facts as derived by the scientific method.

The Chinese unofficially believe it is a plot to constrain developing countries especially itself.   China occasionally plays along because it is the world’s biggest provider of solar panels and other green technology components and as it sees itself as the world’s major competitor of the United States is more than willing to see the U.S. adopt an economy killing green agenda.   However, it has been China who largely has saved the world from western liberals’ attempt to enact United Nation’s agreements to mandate carbon dioxide reductions.

The Chinese call these nefarious endeavors the “carbon plot”.  China appears to have adopted the attitude that “if we give them enough rope they will hang themselves”.  Play along, humor the western liberal fools but all the while keep building up the Chinese economy by what truly works in the real world.  Putting a new coal fired electric power generating plant on line every week, China has no intention of destroying itself by actually participating in the west’s suicide pacts.  The Chinese are not a stupid people and may well have Sun Tsu’s observation in mind when considering the western liberals’ love affair with climate alarmism,

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

When I use the term “global warming” here, I will mean man-caused global warming.  What the warmists mean is that mankind is dangerously warming the planet and unless stopped now it will be too late.  Of course, “now” changes year by year as we’ve already passed numerous dates when we were already supposed to have nearly destroyed ourselves.

Just over the past 20 years or so we’ve passed their dates of no more snow in the United States and Europe, many island nations were supposed to be underwater creating tens of millions of “climate refugees”, the Arctic icecap was supposed to be gone, polar bears drowned and near extinct, large and powerful hurricanes were to be rocking the U.S. mainland every year, rampant tornadic activity sweeping countless Americans to the land of Oz and many more nearly too numerous to count.  We just did pass Algore’s last deadline and the world continues pretty much as it always has.

The United Nations predicted in 1989 that by the year 2000 nations would be destroyed by rising oceans, crop failures and climate refugees would cause political chaos.  Needless to say, that didn’t occur.  Rather than reconsidering the models and their ability to predict the future, they decided that if at first you don’t succeed in scaring the world into submission, then try and try again.  In 2005 UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) claimed that in just five years, by 2010, tens of millions of climate refugees would again be created by rising oceans and extreme disruptions to weather patterns.  Again, another failed attempt to herd the human population onto the UN plantation.

Our own Pentagon decided to jump on the warming bandwagon in 2003, with their own prophecies relying on the consensus of scientists, determined that within ten years, 2013 that the earth would resemble the setting of the Mad Max movie.  In the year 2000, a British climate scientist at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) proclaimed that snow would become exceeding rare in Great Britain, a “thing of the past”.  Since then Great Britain has been pounded with snow and cold.  Hundreds of its citizens have frozen to death as windmills and government mandated “green” home heating systems fail to work in extreme cold.

There are hundreds of these failed pronouncements of impending doom, but we’ll stop with these few comments and cover their utter failures in subsequent writings.

Since it takes little to convince liberal cult members that the United States is destroying the planet, to them it’s a given, warmers hatched a couple of wild hypotheses to explain the hiatus of rising temperatures.  One entertaining one was that all of the heat that was supposed to cause temperature rise that we weren’t seeing was actually trapped somewhere in a layer of the ocean.  No one could find this fugitive heat, but it just had to be there, they reasoned.  This and some other notions paved the way to get us back to “global warming”.  They had spent nearly three decades drumming into peoples’ heads that the globe was warming and it stuck, people were just laughing at them for trying to renege on their warming, there was just no way to gracefully back out, in for a penny in for a pound.

Climate alarmism is nothing new, but actually quite old and “Science” and the media have an atrocious record when it comes to climate scares.

1895 – The world is freezing, cooling

1902 – Glaciers are disappearing, warming

1912-1924  A new ice age is upon us, cooling

1929 – The earth is warming

1932 – teetering again on an ice age, cooling

1933 -1954  Earth in long term warming trend.  1938 also saw the development of the hypothesis that man is causing it by releasing Carbon Dioxide.

The 1930’s did see multiple heat records set in the age of scientific instrumentation, heat that we haven’t seen since (although warmers claim otherwise).

1954 – Cooling is back

1959-1969 – Warming is back

1970 – 1976 – significant cooling and the first serious discussion of government action to control climate.

1981 – massive global warming according to the warmers

Since 1981, the warmers and their politicians have, by and large, hawked the global warming hoax.  No warming has occurred since about 1998 according to the incredibly reliable satellite temperature measurements.  For a brief time from about 2010 to 2014 the warmers in fear of being totally discredited switched to a more generic term of “climate change” with various adverse weather events such as hurricanes, blizzards, localized heat waves, etc as “proof” that Carbon Dioxide was wrecking the planet’s climate.

The biblical definition of a true prophet is that the prophet must always be right.  By definition, a scientific “fact” must always prove to be true when put to the test.  What do we make of these soothsayers who are always wrong?

How does one, especially a lay person, go about evaluating the two sides of the global warming debate?  When “science”, at least publicly, has been coopted almost in its entirety by a political party and worldwide socialist movement, that should be a red flag.  But just because democrats/liberals have totally embraced the proposition that man, especially the United States, is destroying the planet, in itself is not proof that the science isn’t correct. (Although it is usually a pretty safe bet that anything democrats/liberals support is most assuredly wrong.)

However, just because a number of “scientists”, politicians and the media pronounce that the “science is settled” doesn’t mean it is actually settled, but merely so in their minds especially when we consider the great number of accomplished scientists who totally disagree with the claims of the warmers.  The warmers claim that global warming is settled science, that there is a scientific consensus that GW is true.  However, famed author Michael Crighton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, the television show – ER), a Harvard Medical School graduate, lambasted the warmers consensus screed thusly –

 “…I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…”

 “… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way…”

“As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is a dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

“And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science—or non-science—is the handmaiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.”

Liberalism always leads to the loss of liberty and vastly increases government control over our lives.  How could one even argue that point.  Liberals love big government and what is big government?  Big Government is government that grows in power due to laws and regulations that worm their way into every facet of our lives.  What do laws and regulations do?  They constrain our behavior, i.e. infringe on our liberties.  Members of the liberal/progressive movement over the past century have been attracted to Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and communism, Benito Mussolini, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and now have cozied up to islam.

Yet we see virtually no liberal ever live their own personal life as a communist, we see none living their lives as socialists, we see none living their lives as muslims.  So what’s going on?  What is it about these anti-American, anti-God philosophies that attract liberals to them?  One word – POWER.  Liberals are nothing more than “warped, frustrated” men and women who can’t convince their countrymen that liberalism is good and beneficial, that an enlightened and qualified few should govern the masses.  No liberal respects the U.S. Constitution and American ideals, they work tirelessly to subvert them.

Their only real goal is to attain power, to create a nation where the enlightened govern the proles.  Obama called us little people, typical traditional Americans, “bitter clingers to guns and religion”.  What was he saying?  In effect, those who cling to guns and religion cling to the Constitution and God.  Both are enemies of the liberal, enemies of The State.  Liberals elevate The State above all else, they are secular humanists in every sense of the word.  They are convinced they can create the perfect society.

Liberals are much more interested in the acquisition of power than the actual betterment of mankind.  In fact, liberals see a world that is over populated and consider about 6 billion of the world’s near 8 billion inhabitants as superfluous.  Somehow I doubt that I and likeminded others who value liberty, prosperity and religious values make that shortened list worthy of survival in their liberal world.

Liberals are totalitarians, let’s look at a definition for totalitarianism as we find on Wikipedia-

“Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.  Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.”

We see democrat fingerprints on every single one of these characteristics of a totalitarian.  The democrats recognize no limit to government authority.  Name one.  Perhaps you would name the last three, restriction of speech, mass surveillance and use of terror as things liberals don’t embrace or espouse but you would be wrong, of course.  Liberals are already calling for the prosecution of those who speak out against the global warming scam.   “Inside Climate News” reported just last week that –

“The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI’s criminal division.

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by “failing to disclose truthful information” about climate change…”

Recently at a Senate Judiciary hearing AG Loretta Lynch was asked about investigating “climate deniers”, her response –

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

We ignore or laugh at these forces of evil inside our country, but we should take them seriously because they are deadly serious about this power play.  Liberals have put a lot of marbles in play to push this scam and topple our nation.  Control its energy use, control just about every aspect of our modern lives.  There is a real cost to be paid for standing for truth and integrity in our nation today.

Try standing up for moral and Christian values in our universities, the breeding ground for the liberal intelligentsia, and see how far you get.  Mass surveillance is somewhat neutral, or may depend on what you exactly mean by that.  Already security cameras are ubiquitous in cites and many homes and actually can and do serve a valuable service considering the lawless society liberalism has already created in America.  The NSA spies on citizens, but considering who we have foolishly allowed inside our country, that perhaps is not an altogether bad thing.  Give liberals time and opportunity and “use of terror” will only intensify and become more widespread.

Terror can come in many forms, it doesn’t have to mean being burned alive in a cage.  It can mean being unjustly prosecuted by a legal system coopted by liberals to instill fear and set examples of what can happen to a hapless citizen on the wrong side of the prevailing zeitgeist.  Ask Scooter Libby, Ted Stevens of Alaska (well, too late, he’s dead), Tom Delay, Rick Perry and the concerned citizens who uncovered the depravity and criminality of Planned Parenthood.  Ask all of the honest scientists who got fired, demoted or unfunded for standing up against the global warming crowd.  Ask all of the decent students in our education system who have morals and values.  Before terror in America becomes physical it will run its course of destroying lives and reputations through injustice, coercion, intimidation, marginalization and reprisals.  Ask the thousands of our nation’s coal miners who are seeing their industry destroyed and their livelihoods taken from them and in the name of “saving the planet” from this imaginary threat.

In order for liberalism to ultimately prevail, it must stamp out independent and logical thought.  The citizen must be conditioned to accept The State as all-powerful and beneficial and any resistance to it criminalized.  Liberalism must stamp out competing ideologies, especially Christianity, and it must stamp out history and historical symbols that remind us of our origins as a nation.  Our universities are already nothing but hot-beds of anti-traditionalism as we’ve been made keenly aware of over the past year.

Liberalism is in the process of a nihilistic deconstruction of America, to grind it to dust.  If it has forced the removal of the confederate flag, removal of confederate related names of schools and other public things, a serious discussion of blasting away the confederate Stone Mountain monument in Georgia, how long will it be for cries to remove the Washington Monument, Mt. Vernon and Montecello as monuments to slave owners?  How long before the constitution itself is deemed appropriate for the fire as nothing more than a document supporting slavery?  When was the last time you heard a democrat mention a founding father with respect?

Do democrats speak of their support for the radical leftist group Black Lives Matter because they really give a damn about blacks or do they support this group and others like them because they are valuable tools in increasing the racial divide in our country?  Democrats don’t know much about science, but they do know about raw political power, how to obtain it and how to wield it.  At home and in control of the democrat party are our “domestic enemies” that our founders warned of and attempted to safeguard against by the constraints imposed on government by the constitution.

If we can hang on long enough and stop electing democrats to office immediately, we may be able to turn the tide.  One critical component of rescuing America from its clutches is to rightly discredit the global warming scam.  For now the earth itself is cooperating by not warming as it “should” according to the warmists and virtually all of their scary predictions of gloom and doom fail to materialize.  However, never take anything for granted because democrats never sleep.  Like termites eating their way through the structural beams of a house, our political and cultural “termites” are busy 24/7 chewing and clawing their way through the traditions and institution of our once great nation, leaving death, destruction and enslavement in their wake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.