Someone please tell me it’s about to end. That it’s O-V-A-H in
New England. That’s it’s D-U-N in Rio Linda. That it’s
fini in France and finito in Italy.
I’ve experienced a build-up of evidence that undermines climate
change alarmism, and I’m at the tipping point. My head has formed
a canopy of truth-trapping that can only contain so much before
my circuits overheat, blood pressure elevates, and my faith in
broad-based common sense melts away. So please: polish it off in
Poznan — wishful thinking, you might think, but signs point
to the beginning of that end. Read on.
As global warming pathologists insist that increasing carbon
dioxide drives planetary meltdown, scientists who actually watch
the climate trends — as well as all the forces that
affect it – see something different. They observe unchanging (if
not declining) temperatures over the last dozen years despite
increased global CO2 emissions during the same time period. They
see
Antarctic ice swells despite a greater media emphasis on
Arctic
ice (PDF) loss. They see a current warming bias across temperature monitoring
stations; a
cooling pattern since 1997; and a valid theory that solar
cycles affect climate change more than any other phenomena.
That’s just a start to what I will finish momentarily, but the
point is this: that the politicos who push for CO2 emission
reductions, and grant-seeking activist researchers, should be put
out to pastures where they can examine cow flatulence (and a more
effective greenhouse gas — methane) up close and personal.
Meanwhile let the rest of us who enjoy our variable climate move
on to more
important issues like malnourished
children, genocide,
and modern-day
slavery.
Really, you alarmists: you waste our time and resources
de-beefing
your baloney. You
lie about hockey stick graphs — repeatedly
(PDF). You deceive
about “points of no return.” You
manipulate data and promote
“tailored climate information.” You claim there is agreement
among scientists that supports your alarmist beliefs when in fact
there is no such
consensus. You attribute
weather-driven disasters (PDF)
to anthropogenic global warming. You talk all benefits and no
costs when
you tout the wonders of “green jobs.” You’ve
created a whole new industry sector for yourselves with this
garbage. And now you’ve
corrupted companies who want to
skim off their portion.
Please, you’re killing us with this crap.
Why are so many of you are a bunch of
abortion promoting,
population control socialists who hate the idea that free
markets, capitalism, and access to cheap energy resources
do
more to enhance health and prosperity than your treasured
government-mandated programs? Why do so many of your
multimillion-dollar foundations have programs that support
environmentalism excess and species protection while at the same
time they promote human extermination? I suggest you visit places
like Burma and North Korea, make your pitch about the horrid
pollution that their economy-suffocating practices produce, and
then come back and see us when you’ve got those bad boys
straightened out. Then we’ll know you’re sincere about your
priorities.
That anyone takes you seriously about CO2 emitting a stronger
global warming “signal” than other contributing factors is
amazing, but then again, we are talking about the
environoia promoters in the media
who love to stir up the sheeple, aren’t we? Well, they had a good
run of peril
pushing for several years, but now the truth (and economic
factors) appear
to be turning public thought:
There is both growing public reluctance to make personal
sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major
international efforts now underway to battle climate change,
according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11
countries….
Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they
were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce
carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time”
on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents — or 20 per cent — said
they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down
from 28 per cent a year ago.
Speaking of “signals” there is evidence that despite
heroic-looking
anchormen in t-shirts who like intimacy with nature, the
overall media
may be losing interest. News coverage of global warming has
roughly paralleled the phony hockey stick, and with recent global
surface temperatures dropping, there appears to be a plunge in
articles.
Sure, the alarmists can still command a media tizzy at events
like this week’s conference in Poznan, Poland, which is designed
to establish a foundation for the next worldwide Kyoto treaty to
limit carbon emissions. We can only hope that the dome light
comes on for a few more journalists as they see European nations
combat over economic disarmament and over
industry-specific exemptions from emissions mandates. Even
the EU’s queen of green, German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
has turned against the emissions targets she once championed.
So what of America’s president-to-be? Barack Obama may believe
with every
essence of his cabinet that greenhouse gases must be reduced,
but he too must deal with the irrevocable forces of truth and
economics. These two factors will drive the impact on his
policies by a third factor: politics. The rasslin’ this summer
over the Lieberman/Warner climate bill
failed to draw support even from dependable Democrat Sens.
Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (North Dakota).
It’s not hard to imagine further stagnation on the issue through
the end of 2012, by which time we may have finished off the
heel of
the hockey stick.
