 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Global Warming Lies Create a Climate of Crisis
The Protocol is based entirely on a lie that predicts dramatic and imminent global warming. Global warmers insist that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced, but carbon dioxide does not cause climate change. Climatologists will tell you that any rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows warming cycles. The science is well known, but hucksters like the odious Al Gore and those behind the original Kyoto Protocol, with the media as accessories, have created a climate of crisis. It’s a very good thing that our Senate voted unanimously in 1997 against binding America to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control and that both the Clinton and Bush Administrations refused to act on the proposed limits. The reason for the Senate resolution was to avoid "serious harm to the economy of the United States." A November 30 Bloomberg News article by Kristian Rix and Mathew Carr reported that Japan, Spain, and Italy face as much as $33 billion in fines as the result of having agreed to reduce so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions and failed. These three nations are deemed the "worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change." Among the nations exempt from the Kyoto Protocol are China and India, both of whom represent two of the six billion people on planet Earth. The idea that limits on carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved without their participation is idiotic. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a minor role in determining the Earth’s climate but at the same time plays an essential role in the maintenance of all of the Earth’s vegetation, whether it takes the form of crops, jungles, forests, and just someone’s front lawn. Without CO2 all animal life, including our own dies because of its dependence on food crops. The Earth’s atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, including water vapor. We call this "air" and, humans depend on the oxygen content for life. At the same time all six billion of us individually exhale about two pounds of carbon dioxide every day. By contrast, Nature emits about 30 times more CO2 than humans. The oceans of the world absorb and release CO2 all the time. This is Nature’s balance that maintains all life, animal and vegetable, on earth. Consider now how many schools, hospitals, bridges, roads, and other benefits to their citizens that $33 billion represents to Japan, Spain, and Italy. Such fines will be transferred to the coffers of the United Nations for having failed to curb CO2 emissions that are actually a benefit to the Earth! An entirely bogus system of "carbon credits" has been created to transfer huge amounts of money from industrialized nations accused of producing too much CO2 to those nations that, for lack of development—failed economies—will garner funding as they "sell" their excess credits. The same system would allow various industries to sell the same worthless credits to those—primarily producers and users of energy—deemed to be major CO2 "polluters." Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has fallen prey to the lie that CO2 represents a form of "pollution" and should be regulated, the known science renders this decision an egregious juridical error The Earth, over billions of years, has gone through cycles of warming and cooling that are well established. It has gone through periods when the CO2 content in the atmosphere was far higher than today. The latest cooling period is called the mini-ice age and lasted from around 1300 to 1850. The Earth has been warming naturally since then. There is no dramatic warming occurring. Predictions of this are based on totally flawed computer models, none of which can begin to approximate the sheer chaos and complexity of the Earth’s weather system. These computer models, put forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, have been repeatedly revealed to be inaccurate to the point of deliberate deception. The constant assertion that there is a "consensus" among scientists that global warming is caused by humans is yet another part of the lie. As the anti-capitalist forces meet in Bali, the rest of us must demand that we shall not be penalized and threatened by limits imposed on industries and agriculture around the world. The people of the world must not submit to a lie of global warming that is intended to deprive them of the future benefits that energy use, improved transportation, technological innovations, and the expanded production of food portends. .As 2007 winds down, it would be very helpful if you would make a donation to the Center in order to insure we can continue our work in the coming year. A minimum of just $15.00 goes a long way around here. Thank you. Robert E. Lee once said, "It is well that war is so terrible or we should grow too fond of it." War is such an integral part of human history that, despite the many appeals against it, we are drawn to it as often the best and only way to settle disputes. The history of America and most nations is a history of conflicts determined by the taking of lives. Were it not for the American Revolution, a long guerrilla conflict waged against one of the greatest powers of its time, we would not be celebrating our Bill of Rights and other achievements in self-rule. Citing Robert E. Lee reminds us, too, of the horrendous losses of life associated with our own Civil War, but the libraries of the world are filled with books about wars and this new century began with one declared in 1996 by Osama bin Laden against America and Israel. His, too, has largely been a guerrilla conflict and one fought ostensibly to impose a new Islamic Caliphate on the whole of the world. Americans know we are engaged in a war, but beyond the homeland horror we experienced on September 11, 2001 when three thousand of our countrymen died in New York City and at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., this war has been fought at a great distance and is oddly antiseptic in that civilian life here has been unaffected. What was the advice given to defeat the enemy? Go out and shop.
The title of his book encompasses his answer, but a brief conclusion is that humans are hard-wired for war going all the way back when our species branched off to become homo sapiens, leaving the other primates to ponder where to find some tasty bananas. Early on, humans expanded beyond their immediate family members to create communities working together to hunt and gather food. That put us in conflict with other communities. "Right now, as you read this," wrote Smith, "somebody, somewhere, is planning a war. It may be a genocide, an invasion, a revolution, or even the detonation of a nuclear weapon, but whichever it is, you can be certain that it will destroy bodies, wreck lives, and breed misery for generations to come. Almost 200 million human beings, mostly civilians, have died in wars over the last century, and there is no end of the slaughter in sight. The threat hangs over all of us, constant and unrelenting." The survival of America and other Western nations—indeed of any nation—is predicated on victory in war. The present conflicts in which we are actively engaged, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, have been virtually antiseptic in that that are experienced by our population via print news and carefully edited televised reports. We rarely see the true carnage of war. Instead, Americans have been engaged in debates over various legal questions concerning the waging of these wars. Can we hold "enemy combatants" who are not part of a formal military organization? Should we use torture to secure information that would protect civilians and soldiers alike? But wars are not fought by lawyers, even if military tribunals or courts may play a small role in a conflict. Instead, men—and now women—are recruited to engage the enemy and kill him. In a society whose popular culture is saturated via sports like football and movies that depict symbolic or actual conflict, Americans recoil from the realities of war, while watching public television documentaries of past victories. "Looking at forty-one modern nation-states between 1800 and 1945, we find that they average 1.4 wars per generation and 18.5 years of war per generation," wrote Smith. As the world’s Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of the "prince of peace", Smith reminds us that Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." The spread of Christianity in Europe was "accomplished in large measure under the shadow of the threat of death." This reflects Islam, the latest arrival among the major religions, whose holy book, the Koran, is one long battle plan to impose Islam on all non-believers. Like Christianity, it too was spread by conquest. So is anyone surprised that these two religions are still at war? The only thing that deters the current war from expanding is either the capacity of fundamentalist Muslims to acquire weapons of mass destruction or the reluctance of nations like America to apply the ones we have to the battlefield. To further anesthetize the civilian population and our warriors, we do not actually kill people, we "take them out" or "neutralize the target." A panoply of such phrases underwrites one of the necessities of all wars, the ability of humans to deceive themselves against its blood-soaked realities and to provide a way to sooth our collective conscience that, yes, our military is killing our enemies. War, said Smith, is a moral issue. "Arguably, it is the moral issue because it is difficult to envisage any activity that is of greater human consequence…Aggressors are often inspired by moral feelings." This is especially true of the Muslims who have taken up arms against America, otherwise why would 19 Muslims sacrifice their lives to destroy the Twin Towers and attack the Pentagon? The Bible does not forbid killing: it restricts it. The Commandment is not, "thou shalt not kill", but translated correctly says, "thou shalt not murder." The God we worship sanctions war. Smith concludes that "we are extremely dangerous animals, and the balance of evidence suggests that our taste for killing is not some sort of cultural artifact, but was bred into us over millions of years by natural and sexual selection." We may be ambivalent about killing, but we do so for a whole range of reasons, good or bad, and this new century is no different from all that have come before. We need to get on with a successful conclusion to the current war, draw what lessons we can from it, and prepare for the next one. Surrender is not an option. Have you visited our blog? Now you don’t have to wait a week to get information and insight on the events, personalities, and issues of our times.
©
2007 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
The United Nations conference in Bali, attended by some 10,000 participants and observers, is likely to make future generations conclude that ours was deranged to be discussing how humans could have any affect whatever on the climate. They will, in retrospect, agree that the global warming theory was a lie whose agenda was to retard anything that might extend and enhance life on earth.
David Livingston Smith has written "The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War." A philosopher by trade—he teaches at the University of New England—Smith has pulled together an amalgam of philosophy, biology, history, anthropology, sociology and psychology in an exploration of a question that many others have examined: why do we make war?