 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Saying No When Everyone Else Is Saying Yes I have been witness to the complete subversion of science in the service of an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism. In the Middle Ages the Church determined what "truth" was. Today the Green Church seeks the same power. From the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 15th century, civilization experienced a period of ignorance and superstition. Globally, via the media and the classroom, a distorted and debased science is being used to advance the fraud of global warming. The challenge is to say "no" when everyone else is saying "yes" to global warming. There is no dramatic warming of the earth. There is no indication of a near-future warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the growth of forests, crops and everything else that is truly green. Indeed, climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, not precede, warming cycles. They are not a trigger. They are a response.
"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages." The notion that mankind has any impact on climate or weather is absurd. In November, in Valencia, Spain, delegates from more than 140 nations agreed to what they and the media echo chamber that disseminates the global warming lie, called "an ‘instant guide’ for policy makers stating more forcefully than ever that climate change has begun and threatens to irreversibly alter the planet." A science that can barely predict the weather next week is being perverted for purely political purposes. Having followed the IPCC since its inception and the environmental movement in general for decades, I can tell you that what we are hearing is a shrill message of desperation coming from those who fear that people around the world may yet reject the global warming lie. An Associated Press report said that the draft and coming IPCC report "is intended to launch a political process on international cooperation to control global warming." How do you control something that is not happening? Why is everything the IPCC proposes lead to "cap and trade" laws that would impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions, something that reflects human activity, from exhaling to the making of steel, the harvesting of crops, the heating of one’s home, and virtually all forms transportation except bicycles. Why do all of the proposed controls aim at crippling the industrial advances that underwrite the success of Western nations in particular and improvement of human civilization everywhere? In Bali, there are voices calling for a global "carbon tax." It would be collected by the United Nations and we know how well they handle such funding. The Oil-for-Food fiasco is but one example. The funding of the Bali conference is another.
Wouldn’t limits put on the United States and European nations be instantly cancelled by emissions from nations such as China and India that are exempt from the Kyoto agreement? The answer, of course, is yes. Doesn’t the failure of the current agreement and the billions in fines it portends for signature nations suggest still more failure? Despite this, there is legislation making its way through the U.S. Congress that would impose cap-and-trade limits on every industry and business in America. At a time when the U.S. dollar is falling in value and our national deficit has skyrocketed, why would Congress even consider anything that would harm the economic engine of the nation? This is, however, the same U.S. Congress that refuses to permit exploration and access to our national energy reserves, leaving us dependent on imported oil and natural gas while at the same time calling for "energy independence." If I were to devise a plan to destroy the greatest economy, creator of wealth, center of innovation, and exemplar of individual liberty that has ever existed in human history, I would patiently create fear of a global disaster involving the one thing over which humans never had and never will have control, the earth’s climate. I would then propose a "solution" that would cost that economy billions in "carbon credits" to keep it from occurring.
What the former Soviet Union and its failed Communist system could not achieve in some 45 years of the Cold War, the environmental movement is seeking to achieve in its place. By undermining the economy of the United States and Western nations with draconian limits on CO2 emissions, those behind this effort will create a world ripe for a single ruling government composed of unelected bureaucrats whose only purpose will be to feed at its trough. The single greatest determinant of the Earth’s climate, the Sun, will continue to shine, but the world will be plunged yet again into the darkness of ignorance and submission to the false religion of environmentalism if the global warming lie succeeds. As 2007 winds down, I must ask you to help insure that the Center can continue its work in 2008. The Center is dependent on your donation and now to give one. Thank you! It never fails to amaze me how easily people panic over the mention of any chemical in the news, but remain blissfully unaware of their own use of an extraordinary array of chemicals in their daily life. Indeed, our daily lives are entirely dependent on chemicals. I was reminded of this when I received a copy of "Why There’s Antifreeze in Your Toothpaste: The Chemistry of Household Ingredients" by Simon Quellen Field. If the average person, unfamiliar with chemicals, were to read the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) that list "all the dire consequences and safety precautions associated with a compound", they would likely avoid it. Take, for example, the MSDS that lists the following hazards: "Warning! Causes Eye Irrigation." It recommends wearing goggles and a laboratory coat when handing it. "May cause mild irritation to the respiratory tract. Very large doses can cause vomiting, diarrhea, and prostration. Dehydration and congestion occur in most internal organs. Hypertonic solutions can produce violent inflammatory reactions in the gastrointestinal tract." What is this stuff? Salt. "It’s a chemical we can’t live without", notes Field. "What this illustrates is that an MSDS describes the dangers of large industrial quantities of a substance, not the tiny amounts usually found in consumer products." Or that we add to food to enhance its flavor. The news out of China these days is full of warnings about a number of products that have had high levels of toxic substances associated with them. It’s bad news too that the government agency charged with protecting us against these problems is understaffed. It is worse news when some self-appointed consumer group decides to issue a warning about something that almost invariably turns out to be yet another scare campaign funded by who-knows-who for some competitive advantage. Perhaps the best news, however, is that U.S. manufacturers of any product whatever are hypersensitive to the safety issues involved. Does, in fact, toothpaste have antifreeze in it? Well, many have glycerin or propylene glycol "both of which are nontoxic toothpaste ingredients that also have antifreeze properties, in addition to the emulsifying and moisturizing properties that are useful in toothpastes, cosmetics, baby wipes, bubble baths, medicines, flavorings, and shampoos." Some shampoos also include sodium chloride. What is that? Salt, again! Why? Because the daily batch of shampoo may differ from the previous one, perhaps needing some thickening in order to maintain a consistent viscosity. No customer wants to buy a shampoo that is too watery or too thick. Salt helps maintain the right balance and thus retain the loyalty of the customer. Let’s see what chemicals do for us. They act as preservatives, buffers, chelating or sequestering agents, flavorings, sweeteners, as alcohols and phenols, as fats, colors, moisture controllers, emulsifiers, stabilizers and thickeners. That can be bleaching agents or surfactants, conditioners or propellants, polymers and glues, and as abrasives and dental additives. The chemicals we hear about most, advertised every day, are medicines. Consumers routinely clamber for them in the form of antibiotics, pain relievers, or acne medications, to name just a few of the common uses. We use chemicals of every description to protect us against disease. The average American home or apartment has a closet full of them, but the one we take most for granted is soap. Think of soap as a collection of chemicals. Depending on the brand and type of soap you use, the basic components are fats and oils that react to lye (sodium hydroxide). Commercial bar soaps contain sodium tallowate, sodium cocoate, sodium palmate, otherwise known as reacting solid fats. There are more fatty acids in the form of coconut oil and palm kernel oil that help make soap feel good. Glycerin can be added to enhance the texture. But it’s still just a bar of soap! The point of this is to remind yourself, the next time you read that some chemical poses a threat, that every threat is based solely on the dose, the amount. You routinely consume all manner of chemicals, elements of the food your body requires to function. You routinely clean the dishes and cookware afterward with chemicals. You may take a chemical to sleep more soundly.
Chemicals are the building blocks of the Earth and of life. Don’t let the scaremongers frighten you. Have you discovered my daily blog yet? Posts from the blog are increasingly being re-posted on other blogs and websites, just as are my weekly commentaries. The blog permits me to comment on today’s headlines, personalities, and events. In 2008, this is going to be increasingly important as the candidates discuss the issues and programs that will directly affect your life. Have you made a donation to the Center yet? Please do!
©
2007 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
During the United Nations’ Bali climate conference, a hundred prominent international scientists released an open letter warning that any attempt to control the Earth’s climate is "ultimately futile" and would constitute "a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems."