 |
Distrusting Climate Change Globalism
Anthony Gregory
Campaign For Liberty
Friday, October 23, 2009
This December, leaders of the industrialized world will gather in Copenhagen to frame an international strategy against “climate change” to take the place of Kyoto.
Many in the mainstream media would have you believe that someone must be crazy to voice skepticism toward the idea that human carbon emissions cause significant and disastrous global warming.
They don’t usually call it “global warming” anymore. The lingo for a few years has been “climate change,” since it provides a much more rhetorically strong ground from which to deride skeptics. Lambasting those who “deny climate change” is more compelling than to scoff, “how could you deny the earth is warming?” Especially now that we know it has been cooling for a decade.
So it’s cooling now, but the real problem, we are told, is climate change — as caused by human emissions of carbon — particularly with an alleged long-term trend toward warming. Real and alleged cataclysms of nature — everything from Katrina to spiders getting bigger — has been blamed on our greenhouse gases.
Merely to express doubt of this theory has been called “treason against the planet” by Paul Krugman, who probably speaks for a large segment of left-liberals. It is seen as unseemly, unpatriotic and hysterical to wonder if humans are causing the earth to warm in unsustainable and disastrous ways. Another Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, even said a year ago that businesses (conveniently ones that compete with his own favored industrial interests) should be censored for voicing doubt on climate change:
“I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact,” he said. “I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that.”
Scientists who question the common wisdom are marginalized and silenced. It is considered beyond the pale to suggest, for example, that the sun — that big ball of gas that supports the life of the planet, constituting more than 99% of the solar system’s mass — has much more effect on idiosyncratic temperature changes than human-emitted greenhouse gasses. And the fact that the carbon emissions theory was first seriously advanced by the Margaret Thatcher regime to bolster the case for nuclear power, back when the environmentalists had been worried about a “new ice age”? That’s ancient history, and only a loon would bring it up.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
The scientific method relies on doubt and the idea of a settled “consensus” is anathema — although many would have us believe it’s unscientific to harbor doubts. But even putting aside the question of scientific fact, there is the policy discussion, and here it makes even more sense that some of us would be skeptical. The extent to which many Americans and people in the developed world are willing to part with their liberty in the hopes that national and global bureaucracies can fine-tune the planet’s weather is staggering.
At home the immediate threat is so-called “cap and trade,” a scam to legalize and normalize pollution, regulate industry and impose massive costs onto the American people.
Frighteningly, the opinion that dramatic government intervention is needed to combat the alleged epidemic of human carbon emissions has become prevalent throughout much of political life. Most of the energy and auto industry is behind government action. Its necessity is professed on both sides of the aisle. Mainstream Republicans and, tragically, even personalities in the Religious Right have been echoing the establishment hysteria.
It was long assumed industry would resist regulation, but the corporatism here is clear. Just as Kyoto was backed by Enron, today’s stampede toward climate change collectivism is being hailed by corporate America. Businesses get government privileges, allocated perfectly fairly I’m sure, that allow them to emit carbon. This is inherently unjust. Either carbon emissions are dangerous pollution, and such grants are a permission to commit trespass, or they’re not, and it’s an obscenity that government would restrict them at all. In any event, such programs are uneconomical and counterproductive.
The bureaucracy, the connected businesses, the political class, the state itself and much of the establishment stands to gain.
The American people will lose. “Cap and trade” is an effective tax hike on the middle class, and threatens to diminish our economic progress severely. Furthermore, if human carbon emissions are the nuisance that is claimed, warranting the type of worldwide governmental response as is suggested, the consequence would be a wholesale attack on individual liberty in virtually every area. Since carbon is the essence of life, simply being alive would be framed as a “cost” to the “greater good.” Restrictions on consumption, home energy usage, diet, transportation choices, and even family planning could follow. This would require a growing surveillance state and central administration of American life. Already many misanthropes argue that having too many children is an irresponsible and selfish imposition upon the rest of the world. Will families suffer a one-car policy? A one-child policy? Humanity depends on carbon – a politicized war on carbon emissions will prove to be a war on human life.
On the international scene, the U.S. used to be the dissenter, heroically refusing to ratify Kyoto during the Clinton administration, but with Obama in power, we may have to hope other nations lead the resistance. It is good news that even in the EU things are not running as smoothly as some would hope. Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, has been one of the world’s highest-profile skeptics, for which he’s been lambasted in the popular press.
But perhaps those who suffer the most will be the Third World. It has long been fashionable for a dominant political faction — in this international context, the industrialized nations — to suddenly discover a moral code that they had long neglected but are no longer constrained by practical concerns to flout, only to inflict it upon those who can not as easily afford it. The West got rich through an industrial revolution, and yet now many of its celebrated thinkers would deprive these blessings from those just getting started on the path out of ubiquitous and abject poverty. This makes it all the more arrogant and imperialistic for the U.S. to be pressuring China and poorer countries to cut back their own industrial progress in hopes of altering temperatures marginally over the next century.
The popular theory about anthropogenic climate change, when coupled with the policy recommendations currently being contemplated in seriousness, has broad implications for the future of humanity. Taking the steps being proposed could deepen the recession, impoverish millions of Americans, erode our personal liberty, erode the sovereignty of all nations, and deprive nearly half the world’s population of its best shot out of the worst kind of poverty. It is a matter of life and death for so many. And this is all in hopes that a theory which hasn’t produced any accurate models is correct that drastic action, over a hundred years, conducted and coordinated by politicians and major industry worldwide, could spare the earth about a degree less in warming – and that degree will make all the difference to the whole planet.
It would seem to me that people should find it natural, not heretical, that many people would look upon all of this with doubt.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
18 Responses to “Distrusting Climate Change Globalism”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
Watch the “Fall of the Republic.” It explains everything. Thank you, Alex.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
All these politicians burning the Constitution is the only thing warming this debate.
Nebuchadnezzar Reply:
October 24th, 2009 at 3:07 am
What? That sounds horrible! Why on earth would this debate need warming? There are some people right now somewhere who have no money to pay heating bills; and I can sure relate to that. We gotta burn that thing in those peoples’ fire places darnit!! They might need that done! They could benefit from it ya know?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Get off the grid
http://www.alternativecashsavings.com
al Reply:
October 24th, 2009 at 7:58 am
all planets are warming as is the earth. nasa studies this closely. they are using the little incident coming in 2012 as a pretext for global control and enslavement. see timeline of the nazis and hollow moon by trillion. you will get a wake up call on that one. simply the end of an age and the evil ones will be locked out of the next millenia, yeehaw. army of YHWH…………………………………..NO FEAR ABSOLUTELY WHATSOEVER so keep up the harassment. we have armor. al
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Forget about average global temperatures. Forget about ice caps melting and Polar Bears floating across the Atlantic on ice cubes. Forget about rising sea levels, droughts, increased hurricanes, floods and on and on. Also forget about sunspot cycles or El-Nino and La-Nina, or whatever the hell else has been thrown into the mix as a distraction because none of it matters, none of it is relevant. All we have to do is drill down and focus on one thing only.
That one thing is CO2.
It is claimed that humans are responsible for Climate Change because of our CO2 emissions and that we need to have limits imposed because we need to reduce our emissions of CO2.
So first simply ask yourself this:
Can CO2 trap in heat?
Answer: NO, nothing traps in heat, substances can only absorb and re-emit heat but they cannot trap heat.
Next question, does CO2 absorb heat more strongly than the other gasses in the atmosphere?
Answer: NO, CO2 is only 0.03811% of the atmosphere and remains as solid ice up to a temperature of 194.65 K
Nitrogen and Oxygen which make up 99% of the atmosphere on the other hand, begin to melt at temperatures as low as 50-60 K and so are much stronger absorbers of heat and at the same time, make up most of the atmospheric gasses.
This puts the effect of CO2 into context. CO2 cannot trap heat as no gasses in the atmosphere can. CO2 is a tiny proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, so tiny in fact that compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen it is barely noticeable. The effect of such tiny amounts of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of heat than Nitrogen and Oxygen, also show that the warming effect of CO2 is insignificant.
So the final question is, are we responsible for Climate Change through our CO2 emissions?
Answer: NO WE MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
Take that to Copenhagen!
If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/CO2tdino.pdf
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“Many in the mainstream media would have you believe that someone must be crazy to voice skepticism”
Crazy? The MSM treats “climate deniers” as scum lying somewhere between holocaust deniers and child rapists (excluding Polanski, who for some reason is treated as a victim).
October 24th, 2009 at 5:29 am
It’s all about the man behind the curtain.
Hey,Hey Hoo Hoo , How much money did Gore take home ? Hey Hey.
*Nothing will change while you play by their rules.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Friends:
I’d recommend a fascinating book by Lawrence Solomon called “The Deniers: the World-renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud”
Each chapter looks at an eminent scientist – usually a Nobel Prize winner (I know…..) – and examines how their work contradicts the global warming consensus. A pattern emerges: while these scientists say in their own scientific field that the human-caused global warming phenomenon is not substantiated, they still nonetheless have faith that the mass of overall evidence supports human-caused global warming. Yes, faith. That is what supports the belief – faith.
The thing is, when you take a step back and look at all the scientists who plead for an exception to human-caused global warming, you find a huge de facto case against Al Gore and company, built on a mass of real contradictions to FAITH in human-caused global warming.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:39 am
We are tiring of the globalists using environmental issues to pursue their dictatorship and taxing us to pay for it.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am
It takes Rockefeller-level pull to cut the temperature of white hot down to 1200C because 1200C used to be only red-orange hot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Only zionists have the PR technology needed to make the new red-orange-colored 1200C “white hot” stick.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:18 am
It will probably take a lot of media effort and some new legislation to persuade 1500C molten iron that it is 300C above the new zionist “white-hot”-ness. Here’s a closer view of the yellowy antisemitic glowing spill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
The upshot of the new white-hot is that the planet can get twice as hot and yet still feel cooler and emit less infrared. That’s why it’s soooo important to fight global warming even as things seem to get cooler.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am
A quick lesson in manufacturing commodities out of thin air.
Louis Redshaw head of Environmental Markets at Barclays Capital recently said that Carbon will be the worlds biggest commodity market and it could become the worlds biggest market overall. But he didn’t mean carbon as in charcoal or diamonds or even carbon dioxide gas, as none of these things are new to commodities markets. What Redshaw was really referring to was the right to emit CO2. Since 2005 the right to emit CO2 has been traded on the stock market. But the right to emit CO2 is a fundamental human right, so how can it be traded like a commodity on the stock market?
Welcome to the cult of CO2 hate.
The value of a commodity is inversely proportional to its relative scarcity. A substance in abundance has little or no worth. In order to turn the right to emit CO2 into a valuable commodity first you must create a scarcity. But it would have been impossible to create a scarcity of a fundamental human right without employing a clever reality flip. The most important element in this sleight of hand was of course human compliance. This has been achieved by pseudo environmentalism or more accurately the cult of CO2 hate. Pseudo environmentalist are very easy to spot. They are the ones that think CO2 is polluting the environment but don’t actually give a damn about the multitude of examples of real pollution. The cult of CO2 hate has been perpetuated by indoctrination of a purely irrational fear of carbon dioxide. CO2 is an essential life giving gas, invisible and no more a pollutant than oxygen. Yet all across the world it is being talked about as though it is some form of toxic waste purely because it is a by-product of our existence. Healthy levels of CO2 much higher than todays paltry 385 ppm will be nothing but a boon to life on Earth yet, the cult of CO2 hate has been built into a crooked consensus and out of that consensus, restrictions on emissions have been and are being imposed.
Having created a scarcity out of the right to emit carbon dioxide, all that was required was a system by which credits for the right to emit CO2 could be issued and voila, our human right to emit CO2 has become a tradable commodity, listed on the stock market as carbon credits and traded by super rich like some modern slave trade.
Well I’ve got news for you Redshaw.
The next big thing in commodities is the TRUTH. Never has there been such a scarcity of the truth as in the 21st century. The truth is as rare as hens teeth and now more valuable than pure gold.
CO2 The Debate Is Not Over has been downloaded by more than a thousand people from the Alex Jones forums alone in the first 4 days since its initial release. If you would like to know more about the biggest fraud in the history of the world, download this free .pdf now.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/CO2tdino.pdf
October 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
http://www.infowars.com/enslav.....ge-treaty/
Climate change has nothing to do with the negotiations or the meetings, or the treaties. It never has. Climate change is simply an excuse to construct a monstrous international bureaucracy that meets many times each year in exotic venues around the world. Billions of dollars flow into and out of the climate change industry. No one involved in the climate change business wants to hear anything other than a new horror story to put the fear of catastrophe into appropriators.
Dissent is worse than a dirty word at these U.N. meetings. The actual meetings where negotiations occur are closed. Mercy be unto anyone caught with a tape recorder or video camera in an area other than a lobby of cafeteria, or when accompanied by a U.N. staff member. Literature may not be distributed unless first approved by the U.N. staff. In fact, ordinary people cannot even get into one of these meetings. Only official delegates of a government, approved representatives of accredited NGOs, or approved press professionals can register.
Watch the momentum mount as the December meeting draws closer. Ice caps will melt faster, oceans will rise higher, droughts will be more severe, snow falls will be deeper, ice storms will be slicker, crops will fail more often, men will become impotent, and African pygmies will be recruited by the Boston Celtics – all because of climate change – with the only cure being enslavement by a new Copenhagen Protocol to the Climate Change Treaty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-WX3xDQJA
October 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Phrase: “Many in mainstream media would have you believe that someone must be crazy to voice skepticism toward the idea that Human carbon emissions sause significant and disasterous global warming”.
Anagram-cipher: “Secret American science GP/DoD2 head-neck HIV2 halo lab gulag brainwave tortures 2 set data money dynamic & muddle modified Shiva wisdom. It’s dummy-town zoned 4 Ben B. death & duo assassination stratum”.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“..but honestly sur, allz I wanted to do wuz play on me geetar..”
October 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
You fucking idiots, this guy is engaging in the most hilariously ridiculous DISINFORMATION I have ever seen, where the fuck does he get his info and facts from? a god damn wizard!? I could make a 2 hour documentary about how obama wants to make cheeseburgers the only food on the planet because he doesnt support or supports local farmers OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. It’s all about placing the “facts” where you want them. this alex jones is absolutely laughable. I can’t believe so many people believe this shit. I believe 911 was an inside job but pleaaaaaaaase, there is no fucking NWO there are just some silly white guys buying politicians to make them vote a certain way and THEY CANT EVEN DO IT WITH HEALTHCARE! the very fact that I KNOW the fed reserve is bullshit is proof these “global elite” are not gods and control your minds or whatever spooky shit. Its just some companies buying politicans to vote a certain way and thats alllllllllllllllll. god damn how fucking retarded is this country.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:58 am
You sound like a retard yourself.