Global Warming is not destroying the earth

Friends, can we be honest for once here? Man's effect on climate is frankly, minimal, and how do we know this? Because until 1970, we were cooling, and we were putting out tons of pollutants at the time.

Also, historically all the great environmentalists claims and crusades have caused more harm than they supposedly fixed. The banning of DDT for example has led to 2 million deaths a year from Malaria. The dangers of DDT were not only overstated, but frankly, created out of thin air. Environmentalists still demand that no DDT be used, happily ignoring the dangers to the people who are denied this beneficial chemical that nearly ended typhus, and reduces Malaria deaths.

We can also look to the last Court Ordered, and Scientifically questionable issue of the last age and see remarkable similarities. Eugenics won court approval, was widely quoted as good science, considered brilliant when shaping public policy, and was wrong. It counted among it's supporters many nations that now are shilling for Global Warming "Science". Hitler was a firm believer in the Eugenics movement. Now we know that it's all a bunch of pseudo scientific hype. Those who stated that fact when Eugenics was sweeping the globe were shouted down as liars, much as Global Warming skeptics are today.

As an aside, I offer this site, which is trying to find a viable way to destroy the earth, and finds all the proposed means laughable. Suffice to say that destroying the earth is much harder than you might think, you are going to have to do a bit more than drive your car to contribute to it. A few billion square yards of mirrors positioned in space might do it, but short of that.

Let's look at the claims for a moment, of sites like this one. Among other doomsday claims.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.

Gee, as pointed out in my last article, there are roughly 1 million abortions a year in this nation. There are 45 million per year in the world. A rather large difference, which Liberals are want to even discuss.

Global Warming isn't science, science looks at situations to learn, not to justify more funding and massive social change. That is what the Global Warming folks want, massive social change, for everyone but THEM.

Why the world is doomed Part Three

Politically driven Science. No matter where you look in history, you can find politically, or superstision driven science. From tribes throwing virgins into Volcanos to prevent their eruption to slaughtering cats to get rid of the evil spirits that were causing the plague. It isn't just ancient history either. A hundred years ago, the theory of Eugenics was widely accepted by scientists in most every nation. Today, this theory is more or less discredited, but like all scientific theories, it isn't far from a comeback.

Today one of the politically driven science examples is Environmentalism. It really began with Silent Spring and the banning of DDT. That the science behind Silent Spring was questionable, and the impact is obvious with nearly a million deaths from Malaria every year. But the "science" of Environmentalism was off and running, and effecting our lives via the Political implications.

Global Cooling became Global Warming which in turn became Global Climate Change. The problem with this science is that the reality, the facts, never meet the projections. When there is a news story that says the facts are NOT meeting the estimates, it is very difficult to find. Yet even when more data keeps coming in saying that Global Warming is NOT happening at anything near the projections, the press continues to harp the Global Warming IS happening meme. A month after that report came out the Press, even on Fox News was talking about how bad Hurricane Irene was and why it proved Global Warming was happening.

Global Warming believers have taken the science, and turned it into a Religion. Religions promise a better future, often while you are dead, for behaving a certain way. For Global Warming, that promise is "sustainability". This is where we are in balance with the earth and do not take from it more than we absolutely must.

The problem is that the believers legislate fixes to the environment. If you challenge the fixes, instead of heretic, you are called a Denier. Ethanol. That is the process of turning food into a less efficient less powerful gasoline substitute. No politician with dreams of national office can oppose Ethanol. The first primary is held in Iowa, and no one who has opposed Ethanol need apply, they won't win. If you have a history of voting against Ethanol, don't bother showing up. When you lose the first one, you are behind the curve, and an underdog. Your chances are very slim that you will be able to pull a win out of the primaries. All because of Ethanol and the junk science that says it works fine as a way to extend gasoline. We dare not challenge it, because we will pay in the primary.

The political left creates lists of those who deny that Global Warming is happening, and campaign to get those people fired from their jobs for the crime of being a heretic. We shall not discuss the data, we shall not discuss the facts. We shall punish those who deny the rightness of the science. We shall punish those who question the wisdom of the science.

If the actual results don't match the promised doom and gloom, don't worry it will come, just a little later than we estimated, and it will be way worse than we promised before.

Mankind likes to think they have all the answers. In reality, we barely understand the question. But that's not about to stop Politically driven science. Think about it. Oat Bran was good for your heart, and then a few years later another study said it didn't do squat. Wine good for you, bad for you, good for you. Every other year, it's good for you. In between, bad again. I've lost track of all the scientific theories that have been promoted, and then discredited quietly.

Politically driven science will be the death of many more over the next generations. I only hope the future is wiser than the present, or the past. Because right now, I'd say we were doomed.

Global Warming, a Consensus Opinion

With McCarthyite demands, the left insists that there is more than enough evidence, and we need to act now. If you question the "evidence" then you are denounced soundly of being a tool of the corporations, or a paid spokesman, or worse.

The argument is that there is a Consensus of Opinion in favor of Global Warming Theory. I am in love with History, and understand that consensus of opinion existed many times in history. One of the obvious ones I mentioned before is Eugenics. All of my previous posts on Global Warming are here.

The BBC is putting a show on which questions the Global Warming science. Good I declare, because no idea should be so sacrosanct that it can't be discussed. That is what the left decries and claims is McCarthyism, while demanding the same strict interpretations of Global Warming. Hypocrisy is a major mark of the modern Leftist in case you hadn't noticed.

Other times in history where Consensus of Opinion was accepted and in fact demanded to be accepted by all were none to great looking back at history. We have the Inquisition, where not only was the consensus of opinion accepted, people were punished and tortured to insure they accepted it. We have other examples, the Consensus of Opinion in 1490 was that the earth was flat. The Consensus of Opinion in 1900 was that heavier than air flight was impossible. The Consensus of Opinion in 1940 was that man could not survive travel beyond the speed of sound barrier. If History hasn't shown you this lesson, then allow me to make it plain. A Consensus of Opinion is nothing more than everyone being convinced that they are right, even if they are wrong.

We all know the examples, 1500 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the Universe. The leading thinkers all believed it, and people were required to believe this. Now, we have better science, yet we continue to assume we know it all. Modern medicine didn't exist until the 1880's when medicine discovered Bacteria. Wow, knowledge we all take for granted, we assume was always known, painfully obvious, yet we are learning NEW things all the time. Things we learn today may prove a well known thing wrong tomorrow.

The obvious point to that is that we don't know what we will learn tomorrow. We don't know as much as we think we do. Like teenagers, we assume we have all the knowledge we need, and defiantly tell the world that we know enough thanks, and they can butt out. The difference is that Teenagers are supposed to have this abundance of confidence, to which they have no real grounds nor right, yet they are supposed to mature, and learn of the true complexities of life, from personal experience. We were all teenagers, and all erroneously believed we were the first to discover so much about life. Yet, as the years, and life experiences pass by, we learn that there is a lot more we don't understand.

Winston Churchill is purported to have said that if you aren't a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you aren't a Conservative at 30, you have no brain. Do you understand what Mr. Churchill was saying? At 20, you are supposed to be passionate, supposed to believe all the ills of the world can be easily solved, easily fixed. All the problems are so obviously simple, that you don't understand why the elders haven't done it. Perhaps they are too stupid, too ignorant, or just too lazy to fix these problems. People are homeless, build shelters, open them, provide food for them. Yet, the homeless don't go to the shelters, unless it is especially cold. They don't show up for the food regularly. The Homeless don't behave as you think they will. We have poor people, it's obvious isn't it? We need to give them programs that will make it possible for them to have the necessities. Food, shelter, medical, and all the other things. Yet, despite having those programs, there are still poor, many who don't participate in the programs. Also, the programs don't address the core problem. The Why that lurks behind the what you see as wrong. Our elders tried to tell us about educating the poor and downtrodden, and leaving the choices to them. Yet, we teenagers ignored the elders, and demanded action. Later, when we are older, the cycle continues, and we realize our elders were right when they said "if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime."

We turn to the next generation, the next teenagers, and tell them this wisdom that we now understand is true, and we are treated the same way we treated our elders, and the cycle continues.

Global Warming may be true, I doubt it, yet because there is a consensus of opinion doesn't make it science. It makes it a belief. Science is something we can prove. Quantum theory is proven daily, by bar code scanners, by computers, in our daily lives. It is the science that we use to make machines work. Yet, we assign this same level of proven science to Global Warming, because some people THINK it is true. That doesn't make it science, science is something you can prove is true. The earth was round, and Christopher Columbus didn't fall off the edge in 1492 as many said he would. He didn't find India as he expected, but he did find out the earth was a sphere. He proved that the earth was round to the world. Until he did demonstrate the truth, we should not blame people for believing what they all thought was true.

However we should learn that because we believe something may be true, doesn't make it fact. Global Warming, caused by man, is not factual, factual means it's proven true. We haven't yet gotten to that point. We aren't even to the point of setting up the vessels to sail to the edge of the world to explore, much less ready to describe what we found there.