Threat to Freedom: global warning
MONDAY JANUARY 25, 2010
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it":
H. L. Mencken
We are a very tiny planet, so small that one million Earths could fit into the Sun. An alien from any area of space beyond our Sun would not be able to see us against our own sun’s glare. And even if with their superior intelligence and presumably superior sunshades they could see through that glare, and they came from Alpha Centauri in the Southern Cross which, at a quick four light years away is our nearest star neighbour, they would still not see us unless it is possible to see a peppercorn in NZ from 3000 miles away in Singapore.
Global warming alarmists seem to have no grasp of this scale. Our Sun emits more energy in a minute than all human industrial activity in history, and there is nothing we can do to change solar activity. The global warming we have been recently experiencing since the last ice age, the panic-causing 1C over the past 8,000 years, is caused by a 100,000-year solar cycle. How did the Earth, acting alone, all by itself orchestrate being brought out of the Ice Age? How did warming happen before Man came along? How did the Sun get into the sky before humanity? How did carbon dioxide get into the air before cars and factories? If the answer is something to do with natural processes, then why do people think that have these natural processes would have suddenly stopped, paving the way for man to determine climate?
Yet the world is now divided between those who think Nature causes weather, that climate and weather are subject to cycles and that we have always had extreme weather events, and those who believe that man and his emissions are responsible for all the current catastrophes, that climate is irreversibly changing and we are seeing bizarre and freakish weather never experienced before. Warmers point to the dark and smelly smoke coming out of factory chimneys and the sooty smoky fumes from logging trucks and shriek “Eek... we are being poisoned.” They do not know that what they are seeing is mostly dirty water in the form of steam. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and invisible. It may or may not be there, but no one would see it any more than you can see your breath. CO2 is not a pollutant, or black sooty stuff would come out of everyone’s mouth when they exhaled. Dark factory chimney smoke is steam plus wood gases which contain CO2 plus unburnt fuel. The CO2 is merely being returned to the air after being extracted some decades ago during the tree-growing process.
But pollution is getting nicely confused with climate such that politicians can design new tax opportunities. Soon, eco-green regulations will change the building industry, with new and more expensive compliant materials, new permits needed, creating more work for consultants and lawyers and providing a rationale for a whole new bureaucracy. All this is based on the convenient lie that CO2 is a pollutant.
Unfortunately skeptics don’t get a look in. No skeptic receives research funding. If anyone has an alternative viewpoint they are expected to develop it in their own time and for free. No debate is sanctioned by government and the submissions process is a well known farce. Worse, calls for debate are labeled unpatriotic and treasonous. The official line is that an international "consensus" of scientists exists negating the need for debate, or that "the time for debate is over." Global warming skeptics are either industry shills, incredibly misguided, or evil needing to be silenced. British foreign secretary Jack Straw said that "skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media." Grist magazine called for Nuremberg-style "war crime" trials for those who deny that human beings are causing a global climate disaster. George Monbiot (author of The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order) wrote in Guardian magazine that "Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
To combat global warming, its militant adherents say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. To achieve this radical restructuring of society, they demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted. Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished. As one environmental activist says, "Everything modern has to go."
While intoning these demands, warmers seldom discuss the real cost of their proposals – in dollars and human terms. Just curtailing use of refrigeration would result in millions of human deaths from food spoilage and contamination. Restrictions on cars, airplanes and other means of transportation would wipe out much of the progress of the last 100 years. Drastically curtailing industrial activity would result in global depression, disease and a reduction in population.
If lawsuits in the US are anything to go by, emitters, that is, anyone who burns anything or runs an engine without a permit, may be in for a testing time. A federal judge on Monday, Sept. 17, 2007, tossed out the lawsuit filed by California that sought to hold the automakers accountable for their contribution to global warming. The state sued Chrysler Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and the U.S. subsidiaries of Japan's biggest manufacturers, Honda North America, Nissan North America and Toyota Motor North America. The accused were the six largest U.S. and Japanese automakers. Thankfully the judge ruled it is impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global warming damages in California. Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco noted that many culprits, including natural sources, are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide.
The ruling was a defeat for California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has made fighting global warming a priority. "The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe," Jenkins wrote. His inference was that courts should find a way of suing successfully. The Bush administration has consistently opposed any international treaty - including the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - that would impose cuts on greenhouse gases because it would harm foreign policy. Does that mean if the world population significantly shifted towards believing in global catastrophe the Greens would encourage the same lawsuits in NZ?
The doomsday theory is fraught with error and bad science. It is little more than a politically-motivated power grab by politicians and the far Left, who will continue getting more money and more power to "save us" from ourselves. While human industrial activity is not causing climate change, that has not stopped money-hungry bureaucrats from promoting moves towards new taxes, permits, and police-power over every business – from your corner dry cleaner to the largest industrial plants. The new disaster agenda is in fact that old "back to the earth" socialism, which longs for a simpler time, when the king's word was law, people seldom ventured beyond the village in which they were born and heated their homes with animal dung. To some that sounds romantic and "eco-friendly," but for billions it would mean their own catastrophes of poverty, slavery, and disease.
Only modern industrial capitalism, which has been knocked into a workable shape by three quarters of a century of trade union movement, can provide affluence and freedom of choice for all, and only the mass consumption of energy can make modern industrial capitalism possible. Rather than cutting back it would make sense to spend much more on fuel, to make the oil companies rich enough to begin real research into new technologies like water engines and cheap solar units that will benefit poor people. Of course we are not that stupid to trust that that would happen, as we know oil barons would just pocket more profits and governments skim more tax, so the problem is not solvable whilst cartels and governments work together to rip off the rest.
The new army of greens seek to make us all feel guilty about our wealth and our consumption of energy. If environmental extremists wish to live in 15th Century primitivism, let them move to Somalia or Madagascar, and leave the rest of us alone. Let us hope that as they demand we surrender our freedom and prosperity to prevent a climate disaster, so too do common people, who have always found ways to adjust to any perceived change of weather patterns, find strength and courage to speak out against Al Gore and this false alarmism which will lead to our ultimate inconvenience and expense whilst filling his own coffers.
For here is a man dedicated to the Al Gore Fund, which is where the proceeds of Live Earth! went. It is no secret but not widely publicized that he runs a business (General Investment Fund worth $750m) that sells carbon-credits to governments. Could it be that by generating panic the environmentalists, headed by Gore, advance tiny steps towards world government? It seems Gore is not really interested in the US presidency. Perhaps it is because he has his eyes on an even bigger prize, that of world government Leader. The recent once-prestigious awards he has won show only that he has many believing he is the next Messiah, the only man on the planet capable of saving it from itself. Politicians who curry favour with Gore are positioning themselves as close as they can get to the corridors of the UN, which since 1948 has been promoting itself as the only candidate for future world government.
Truth has already become a casualty. Gore will not allow himself to take part in a public debate about global warming, neither will our local politicians debate it. Yet political chambers used to be bastions of debate, which was reflected in the populace. For that reason we must not stop talking about the fallacy of global warming and the nonexistence of climate change. We must tell our children the truth, not the Gore/Clark so-called truth, and insist our schools also give balanced viewpoints. To all we meet we should point out the flaws in this popular pseudoscience that is trying to turn everybody’s brains to mush. Only by encouraging debate will we bring about an undoing of their stranglehold on our freedoms. The price of freedom is still eternal vigilance. It looks like the next international battleground may not be for territory, which in the computer age renders everything instantly global, but for the control of minds.
© Ken Ring