The Conservative Edge

A few days ago, a column written by Nicholas Kristof appeared in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Mr. Kristof’s piece stated that Americans are unable to process the oncoming threat of global warming. He asserts that we have a cavalier attitude that prevents us from perceiving future dangers, even though we are alerted at more immediate ones.

I felt compelled to write a letter to the paper, pointing out that global warming is not presented in a factual, common-sense manner. Most global warming supporters use emotionally-based arguments and presentations to make their points.

If you’d like to see the letter, and accompanying responses, follow this link to the Dayton Daily News website. Feel free to post a response either here at this blog, or at the paper’s opinion page. You might be surprised at how many people are refusing to accept the dubious global warming theory.

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.

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.