The Conservative Edge

Religion is a funny thing. It’s sort of like water—it has equal capacity to either sustain or kill any human being. Some people (a shrinking minority of individuals) can develop an acute sense of morality as a result of their particular religious beliefs. On the other hand, far too many people misuse their faith, seeking to control or rule other persons.

This desire to attain supreme authority is not limited to Bible-believing Christians or even jihadists who follow the Koran. Religion takes many shapes and forms, and there are certainly more gods who are worshiped besides the One who created the Earth. We must remember that religion is based on faith, not reality. Faith must also be expressed and preached by someone with enough charisma, skill, and determination so that his ideals might be accepted and, ultimately, never questioned.

I am particularly reminded of one fellow in the Bible, a man named Simon, mentioned in the Book of Acts. He claimed to be some great power of God, and asserted himself so effectively, that he completely controlled the minds and behaviors of the people who lived in his city. The only way his spell could be broken was by the revelation of a new religion that emphasized freedom and healing over mind control. Simon lost his following when the new religion swept through the town.

Alas, Simon still lives. He lives because faith can still be used in this 21st century to control, manipulate, and subdue. The deity worshiped today is Mother Earth, and her disciples are many. High priests like Al Gore demand that we accept his ideals on faith, not reason or careful consideration. Claims are made that a majority of experts agree with him, even though it is entirely possible that a majority can be wrong. We are urged to accept computer projections of earth’s warming instead of proven laboratory tests and concrete evidence. Just as Gore and other liberals might suggest that God cannot be real because He cannot be proven to exist, Gore’s own theory of global warming cannot be proven either.

It has been said that a tyrant’s stated desire to save the world only conceals his true desire to rule the world. The people who would benefit most from a re-engineering of American society are the high priests such as Gore who are already set to benefit from the energy industries they endorse. The citizens of America, meanwhile, will be left with growing energy bills, shrinking transportation freedom, higher unemployment, and a general stranglehold on pursuits of liberty, wealth and happiness.

In the Biblical story about Simon, it is obvious that there was no liberty, wealth or happiness in his town. Religion and faith had been used (misused, one might say) by Simon to achieve a dictatorship. The same thing will happen today if Gore and the other false disciples successfully subdue America in the name of Mother Earth.

That’s right—Al Gore thinks you’re a Nazi if you disagree with or refuse to accept the global warming theory. Here are some of his remarks, found on the science blog Watts Up With That? on July 7, 2009:

“Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis. The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

“He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.”

That last statement is quite amusing, because the global warming theory itself relies on a perceived ignorance in order to be accepted. However, there have been polls conducted which suggest that the more people discover about global warming, the less likely they are to accept it as fact.

That’s because global warming is presented primarily as an emotional argument. We hear that the ice caps are melting; the environment is in danger; the polar bears are becoming extinct; and now, one of the most emotionally-charged statements of all coming from the mouth of Al Gore, associating global warming resisters with the Nazis.

Demagogues such as Al Gore are forced to use emotion in their remarks because they have little else to go on. Facts and common sense contradict the global warming theory. There are scientists who believe that we need not rush into hasty and overzealous legislation to combat the buildup of “greenhouse gases.” The average American can easily grasp the notion that solar activity can account for as much as 68% of Earth’s temperature variation. That’s just common sense, since the sun is our primary source of heat. But that doesn’t make the same kind of headlines that Al Gore likes to make with his remarks about the Nazis.

In fact, one could make the case that it is Al Gore who is acting like a Nazi. When Hitler began gathering support and power, he first felt compelled to rid the German government of all Communists. However, since most of the Communists happened to be Jews, Hitler extended his persecution to the Jewish race. Hitler relentlessly blamed the Jews for Germany’s ills, making them scapegoats for everything. It’s downright spooky to see how Al Gore demonizes those who disagree with his gospel, just as Hitler did in the 1920s and 1930s.

The real danger of global warming is that it can be used to completely change and control our lives. It can limit our transportational freedoms, and dictate how we feed our families and heat our homes. We don’t need or deserve the level of domination and control that will envelop us if global warming legislation is fully implemented. That’s what Al Gore is really after—domination and control. He hates us, you know.

I’d like to take the opportunity to thank you folks who regularly view this blog site. There have been some great comments left in response to certain topics. I recommend that you read one particular comment by Dave, in response to my post “A Letter to Kathleen Parker.”

I have written previously about my skepticism concerning the whole global warming theory (just look in the December archives link). Notice that I didn’t say “climate change theory.” What’s the difference? Well, our climate may indeed be changing, and may be part of a natural cycle. I’m sure that geologists can find historical evidence of repeated changes in the Earth’s climate. The History Channel recently revealed that some 5,000 years ago, there was melting of the polar ice, due to some climatic change.

But the global warming theory suggests that mankind is responsible for the current change(s) in climate. That is a much different view, and goes beyond any statistical processes used to track environmental patterns. Global warming proponents are using their theory to bring about social and economic changes. America will unfairly be held responsible for causing global warming, and to also reverse the effects. How many billions of dollars will it take to “undo” the damage? What will we have to give up in order to satisfy the alarmists? There is nothing wrong with eliminating sources of pollution, but it seems presumptuous to blame the average American, and American industry, for dumping CO2 in the air and creating a worldwide greenhouse.

Columnist George Will, who also questions the global warming theory, remembers the opinion held in the 1970s that we were headed for a new ice age. He reveals that The New York Times reported on May 21, 1975, that “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was certain that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.” Indeed, I remember seeing reruns of the show “In Search Of” hosted by Leonard Nimoy in the late 70s. One episode showed scientists examining ice core samples for proof that we were headed for a great global cooling. The harsh winters in states like New York and Ohio in 1977 and 1978 seemed to support that idea. But the fears of a new Ice Age were unfounded, and the global cooling never materialized.

George Will shares an interesting fact in his column. On February 18, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of February, there were operational problems with the satellites that measure sea ice. These problems caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That’s an area roughly equivalent to the size of California. In other words, we didn’t lose as much sea ice as the alarmists might want us to believe.

Funny how a little thing like a satellite malfunction can blow a big hole in the global warming theory.

President-elect Barack Obama recently introduced his “science advisor”, Harvard University professor John Holdren. I don’t know if this man will be in the White House basement practicing alchemy, but it does appear that Mr. Holdren will be responsible for lending some scientific credibility to the whole global warming argument/theory. Obama’s future efforts to pass environmental legislation will depend on having ideas based on “scientific” authority and inspiration.

Here is a statement from Mr. Holden on the phrase “global warming”: “It is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust and, alas, rapid compared to our capacity as a society to adjust,” he said. “We should be calling it global climatic disruption.”

I seem to remember the last “global disruption” that mankind was doomed to experience. It wasn’t so long ago, and it was commonly referred to as the “Y2K crisis”.

Think back to the year 1999, and how the entire world feverishly worked to correct the computer bug that would cause computer systems to crash when the date turned to January 1, 2000. I distinctly remember the panic, and the scenarios that were sure to unfold—airplanes would fall from the sky, gas pumps would no longer work, water-treatment plants would dump sewage into our rivers, and banks would surely scramble everyone’s accounts. I also remember some people I worked with at the time, who were busy buying batteries, 55-gallon drums for water storage, food rations, flashlights; some folks were even stocking up on firearms and ammo, to be ready for the stealing and looting that would occur.

Many companies staffed extra computer system and network personnel in anticipation of trouble. Hundreds of computer technicians were denied holiday leave, because they would be needed for the expected computer crashes. And, remember the political figure who was prominent during this time? It was Al Gore himself, the man who once claimed that he practically invented the Internet. In fact, he still has a seat on Apple Computer’s board of directors. Now, Mr. Gore wants to be savior of the world in the next great global crisis.

The methodology is simple for the would-be messiah(s): first, you must create the crisis, then present the solution to the crisis. There must also be a manipulation of society, using guilt and blame. Indeed, I think that, instead of the Nobel Prize, Al Gore should have received a “Misanthropist of the Year” award. He, along with other authorities, seem to take pleasure in blaming America (and its people) for the state of the global environment. Apparently, it’s our fault for burning fossil fuels to power our cars and heat our homes, dumping all that CO2 into the air. The problem is, Gore & Co. wants America to pay for the global cleanup, too.

Never mind that the earth has cooled slightly over the last few years. Never mind that increased solar activity (verified by NASA) was the cause of global temperature rises. Never mind that water vapor, not CO2, results in the greenhouse effect. Never mind that there are numerous scientists who disagree with the global warming theory—they never get a chance to offer their views, and they are never allowed to question Mr. Gore at any of his public appearances. Al Gore wants to be some kind of messiah in the worst way. He didn’t get to save the world from Y2K, and he didn’t get to be President of the United States. “Global warming” is his way of getting even with America. I hope Mr. Obama doesn’t share that sentiment.