Environment

I’m working on a book called Truthful World. It focuses on the many “lies” that are prevalent in our world and the need to seek out the facts in numerous areas of life.

One of the lies that troubles me is the constant drumbeat of global warming. We’ve been told with almost epic hysteria by Al Gore and others that unless we make some drastic changes to CO2 output in this century, then massive flooding and human catastrophe will ensue. There is a group of scientists that share this view, but also many that do not. Somewhat like the creation-evolution debate, those on the global warming side have worked hard to squash all dissent and create the impression–a lie at worst and only a possibility at best–that there is only one reasonable view and if you don’t hold it, then you’re crazy.

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined the one-sided hysteria with this announcement that “the heating of Earth’s climate from fossil fuel use threatens human health and the environment.” The EPA said its finding was based on “rigorous peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.” They stated as a fact that these gases contribute to global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere and that the effects could be “more droughts, more extreme and more frequent heat waves, more intense storms, rising sea levels and harm to water sources, agriculture, and plants and animals in the wild. The very young, the elderly and those in poor health could suffer the most. Global warming could also “threaten national security if it triggered wars or mass migrations as resources became scarce.”

But it gets worse. The global warming situation has become so dire that Barack Obama‘s chief scientific adviser has raised with the president the possibility of massive-scale technological fixes to alter the climate known as ‘geo-engineering‘. John Holdren, who is a member of the president’s cabinet, said on April 7, 2009 that the drastic measures should not be “off the table” in discussions on how best to tackle climate change. While his office insisted that he was not proposing a dramatic switch in policy, Holdren said geo-engineering could not be ruled out.

“It’s got to be looked at. We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table,” Holdren said in an interview with Associated Press. He made clear these were his personal views. The suite of mega-technological fixes includes everything from placing mirrors in space that reflect sunlight from the Earth, to fertilizing the oceans with iron to encourage the growth of algae that can soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide. Another option is to seed clouds which bounce the sun’s rays back into space so they do not warm the Earth’s surface.

Gadzooks! Sounds like an Environmental Star Wars program where instead of shooting down invading missiles (a good idea) we shoot down carbon emissions (a dumb idea). It sounds like environmental Armageddon is just around the corner. So what should the United States do based on these unalienable rights–oops, I mean facts. Back to the EPA. We should “order the nation’s first mandatory reductions of global warming emissions from a spectrum of sources including motor vehicles, ships, airplanes, power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills and more.”

Note the words order and mandatory. Based on the highly questionable opinion of a number of scientists and environmental hacks, the US government (i.e. Obama administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress), should use force–without choice–to achieve a major reduction in the evil-ozone-busting carcinogens.

That means your energy bills are going way up, the recession could turn into a Depression, and you may have to give up your car and take the bus.

And all of this for an unproved theory–which is probably a lie.

Why am I calling global warming a lie? Because the facts just don’t support it.

Dennis T. Avery’s book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, shows that global warming and cooling have well-known patterns over thousands of years. In fact, as recently as one thousand years ago, well before the use of fossil fuels, the European continent was significantly warmer and vineyards flourished in Iceland and Greenland.

Avery analyzes the works of more than five hundred scientists, including researchers from many of the world’s top research institutions, such as the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory affiliated with Columbia University, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysical Research, the Woods Hole and Scripps Oceanographic Institutes, Sweden’s Upsala University, New Zealand’s Waikato University, South Africa’s Witwatersrand University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. These scientists believe:

1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating; or

7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

8) Climate changes are due to a natural, moderate 1,500 year cycle discovered in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores in the 1980s. Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland discovered the climate cycle, in the first long Greenland ice cores. Claude Lorius of France led the Antarctic team that reported on the first long Antarctic ice core in 1985. Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles have since been found in seabed and lake sediments, ancient tree rings, boreholes, cave stalagmites, glacier movements, and archaeological artifacts all over the world.

9) Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle theory is now supported by hundreds of peer-reviewed research reports, with more than 1,000 authors and co-authors, from research institutions around the world. If you’d like to see the list of five hundred of the researchers, CLICK HERE.

By the way–did you notice a few years ago that the environmentalists quietly changed the term in the global warming debate? They stopped using “global warming” as the phrase of choice and began to substitute “climate change.” Very curious. If they were so convinced the only “climate change” happening was warming, why go back to a phrase that could mean warming, cooling, or change of any type?

I’m glad you asked. It’s because the most recent and reputable research shows that for the past couple of years, the Earth has actually gone into a period of cooling down which could go on for the next three decades.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. He recently published a report with the following conclusions:

“Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Now we know why the language has changed. The Earth is going into a cooling period and the scientists on the other side of the debate want to keep talking and still sound relevant. No wonder we had such a harsh winter in the Pacific Northwest this year! I wasn’t imagining things. “Climate change” is taking place–but that really means that a cooling cycle has begun.

So why do we still still hear about global warming from President Obama, our liberal Congress, the EPA, the radical environmentalists, and the mainstream media?

Because this issue was never about science or honest debate. It was about power through a political agenda:

• That won’t allow America to become energy independent by drilling in our own nation for oil, natural gas, building nuclear plants and clean-coal facilities, and wisely utilizing wind, solar, and renewable sources to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.
• That wants to get Americans out of their cars and onto mass transit, buses, and other forms of collectivist transportation schemes.
• That desires to bring a controlled economy to the United States through high energy costs and a higher degree of national poverty and government dependence.

The global warming rhetoric is not about science–it is about power, control, and ultimately environmental tyranny over the modern world.

Here’s a simple message to the tyrants among us: “Earth to EPA and other government elites: We don’t believe the lies and we won’t allow you to force us into energy slavery.”

And to all: Your liberties are under attack due to a bald-faced lie. Don’t believe it. Be good stewards of the world you occupy and resist the power grab. Do it by sharing the facts.