Traverse City Record-Eagle


Global Warming: Fact, fiction or fascism [part IV]

Troy Keith, The Armchair ConservativeConsensus or “Con-cent-sus”?

We’re almost done, thanks for hanging in there…

I recently spoke with Bart Stupak's office, our local BAR Association and the Library of Congress regarding the rampant growth of "green legislation" and all three said that the task of quantifying the number of environmental laws on the books (even a rough estimate) was next to impossible.

Perhaps, rather than the sheer volume of existing laws, we should be more concerned about the scope of what's to come.

The Dept. of Energy determined that the recently defeated Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill, modeled loosely after the european system, would have caused a loss in GDP between $444 billion and $1.308 trillion with an estimated cost to US taxpayers of $4 to $6 trillion (according to CRA International).

Given that both presidential candidates favor some sort of cap and trade legislation, the debate is most likely not over yet.

Alan Greenspan: "There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy. Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."

From Louise and Frederic Williams of Little Compton, Rhode Island, bought five acres for a new home. When their home was already partially constructed they received a letter from state environmental officials ordering them to tear it down. Although there was little water on the property, eco-bureaucrats had declared their property to be a wetland. The EPA also ordered them to plant trees and tend them for a full year at their own expense. The value of the Williams’ property plummeted from $260,000 to less than $30,000.

How could a dry homesite be classified as a wetland? Robert J. Pierce, who helped write the 1989 EPA wetlands standard, bluntly states, “Ecologically speaking, the term “wet-land” has no meaning . . . . For regulatory purposes, a wetland is whatever we decide it is.” [National Wetlands Newsletter, Nov/Dec 1991, pp. 12.]

Depopulation and the Global Warming Agenda

“The UN assumption here is that climate change will only be stopped once population levels are reduced. But just how does the UN intend to decrease population levels? Well, it seems that the United Nations will fund forced sterilizations and abortions to make sure the world is "safe" from "climate change".

…But by avoiding a fraction of the projected population increase, the emissions savings could be significant and would be at a cost, based on UN experience of reproductive health programmes, that would be as little as one-thousandth of the technological fixes. The reality is that while the footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so."

Author Daniel Taylor outlines the globalist agenda of the Club of Rome:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Why is humanity the ideal enemy? Well, this would mean that governments across the world could then use global warming as a means of implementing even more taxes in the name of "environmental safety". There are already countless plans to introduce a "carbon taxes" for everything from flying to household garbage.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, states (in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era”) “that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…”

Letter to the United Nations (Note the Pedigrees)

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y.

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.

Geological, archaeological, oral, and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds, and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

  • Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise, and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
  • The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
  • Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often-repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Don Aitkin, Ph.D., Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, Ph.D., physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D., FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D., environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D., Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, Ph.D., remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr., UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, Ph.D., Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, Ph.D., Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D., climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, Ph.D., Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, Ph.D. (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, Ph.D., E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, Ph.D., Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, Ph.D., mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, Ph.D., editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, Ph.D., Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R.W. Gauldie, Ph.D., Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D., Sc.Agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, Ph.D., expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink M.Sc., M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Andrei Illarionov, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, Ph.D., M.D., computer modeling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, Ph.D., FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D., former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University, Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, Ph.D., economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, Ph.D., meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, Ph.D., Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, Ph.D., independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, Ph.D., Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, Ph.D., Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, Ph.D., Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, Ph.D., Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, Ph.D., international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, Ph.D., climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, Ph.D., economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, Ph.D., former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, Ph.D., Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, Ph.D., Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D., atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, Ph.D., Economics, Australian National University

Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D., Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, Tekn.D., Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, Ph.D., former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, Ph.D., P.E. (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Ph.D., geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, Ph.D., Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, Ph.D., Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, Ph.D., Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D., senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, Ph.D., P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, Ph.D., Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, Ph.D., President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

In closing, I would just like to say that the purpose of this document was simply meant to show the vast amount of evidence contradicting the commonly accepted theories about climate change. Numerous scientists and climatologists have compiled extensive research casting significant doubt upon the rising waters of global warming and I for one, would like to have the matter settled definitively before signing away rights and freedoms that no government body or commercial organization has the authority to take.

Legitimate arguments have been made by both camps amidst a myriad of phony claims and questionable science. Separating the chaff will require reasoned thinking and a careful approach — not alarmist propaganda and confiscatory legislation.

Let's drive less, recycle more and continue to take reasonable steps to reduce our impact upon the planet's ecosystem, but we should also demand proof and accountability from those that are so quick to impose their agendas upon the good intentions of the American people.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen as pathetic an attempt at legislative management as the majority’s bumbling attempts to promote the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill this week – The only way to manage the manageable risk of global warming is to produce a package of measures that does not raise energy prices, rather than the massive, many trillion dollar wealth-redistribution and tax package these geniuses came up with.”

– Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute

It’s not that easy being green
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow, or gold
Or something much more colorful like that

It’s not easy being green
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over
‘Cause you’re not standing out
Like flashy sparkles in the water
Or stars in the sky

But green’s the color of spring
And green can be cool and friendly-like
And green can be big like a mountain
Or important like a river
Or tall like a tree

When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why
But why wonder why wonder
I am green, and it’ll do fine
It’s beautiful, and I think it’s what I want to be

– Kermit the Frog

Additional Links and Resources (no particular order):
John Christy's Web Site

Finding the Truth About Climate Change

600 things attributed to global warming

Climate Audit

Czech President Calls Man-Made Global Warming a Myth, Questions Al Gore's Sanity

Reasoned Thinking Comes From Cooler Heads

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics

Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

The Faithful Heretic

Global Warming Fallacies

Top 10 Myths About Global Warming

Junk Science

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History'

U.N. Climate Panel Charged With Conflict of Interest

Global Warming Test

Global Warming Petition Project and

35 "Inconvenient Errors"

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud

Scientific Discussion of Climate Change

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

Global Temperature Trends

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works — Minority Speech

  • Jeff Kalember

    I’ve skimmed your blog and comments with interest Mr. Keith. I’m wondering what your scientific background is? Do you have a degree in meteorology? Ecology? Biology? When someone gives such a strong opinion about cause and effect related to science the first thing i look for is their education related to the field. Without the background, I feel, your opinion falls on deaf ears. I’d love to give people some financial advice about how to invest, but since i have absolutely no training in the field who will listen??

  • Troy Keith

    Hello Jeff – thank you for your comments. To answer your question, I am not a meteorologist, a climatologist or a proctologist for that matter – although some might disagree with that last statement :)

    I was taught years ago to give your opinion, but to quote from those that know.. which is what I’ve tried to present with this piece. I think you’ll find numerous credible authorities cited throughout.

    You may be a janitor, but if you handed me a copy of the Wall Street Journal, it would not make the information contained within any less valid and I could most likely use such info to make informed investments.

  • Jeff Kalember

    The cause and effect relationship between global warming (we both agree it IS happening) and WHY it is happening can be argued from both perspectives quite easily. I’ve seen data on both sides that look convincing.

    I could google up any number of credible scientific studies showing how human’s have influenced and helped create global warming through massive consumption of fossil fuels that you’d have a hard time arguing against.

    Will anyone ever convincingly prove either side? No. Will we ever be able to put a percentage on it? Its 50% human and 50% natural cycle ? maybe …

    Instead of arguing the point, lets come up with creative solutions to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, reduce our need to consume consume consume, and generate a cooperative nature to deal with energy. Why point fingers? Write a blog to HELP the cause not stir up one sided finger pointing.

  • Whig

    Interesting post (s). Over the last several I have failed to see the connection between your amusing rants and fascism, though. And it seems that fascism is one piece of your triad, no? I’m just not seeing much along the classic themes of centralization, censorship, strident nationalism, rascism, and the like. Are you just another one working the “Warming as fear-mongering so that we can justify full-on social/environmental reform” angle, and calling it fascism? If so, do a bit more research before you label things with unnecessarily inflammatory words. Just wondering. Please amplify.

  • Jeff Kalember

    the more i read your blog Mr. Keith the more I realized its been CTRL C’d, CTRL V’d from many sources. How many of these words are YOURS? A blog is YOUR thoughts, not someone elses.

  • Troy Keith

    Jeff, I think we can agree that global warming (or perhaps “global cycling” might be a better term) is happening, but if it is indeed due to natural rhythms or cycles of the planet, why should we race to turn civilization upside down in an effort to prevent something we may have absolutely no ability to affect?

    There are arguments to be made from both sides (which was the point of the piece), but we seldom hear anything that casts doubt upon the alarmist view. As stated in the closing paragraphs: “I for one, would like to have the matter settled definitively before signing away rights and freedoms that no government body or commercial organization has the authority to take.”

    I also agree that we need to develop new energy sources, but we should also fully utilize the vast amounts of existing energy we currently have available. We drive one car in our family, visit the recycling center and generally try to shop “green” whenever possible, but I do that because of a general philosophy I have towards common sense environmentalism – not because the planet is on the verge of destruction or because the government is forcing me to do so. I think there’s a big difference in the mentality not to mention that one is done by choice and the other option is mandated from the top down.

  • Troy Keith

    Hello Whig.. debating the choice of title isn’t really the response I’d hoped for, but the simple answer is that I needed another “F” word that would provide the “cheeky triad”.

    For what it’s worth, the Merriam-Webster definition of Fascism is:
    a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    I think that definition could easily be applied to the political agenda behind much of what I’m seeing out there regarding the environmental movement.

  • Jeff Kalember

    Your “cheeky triad F” word is NOT your word Mr. Keith, you copied and pasted that from another article on the internet with the same title. Give credit where credit is due.

  • Whig

    Looking for F-words. Now that’s rich. Too easy. I read the M-W def, and nope, the label still doesn’t work. Unless you can tell me how you are being forcibly suppressed. You can’t because you’re not. Additionally, titles are fair game, to my mind. Words mean something. Some are particularly evocative and harmful, especially when used for effect, not to reflect reality, which is what you did in this series of posts.

    Still, its good to stir it up. Especially on such an important issue. So thanks for that.

  • Troy Keith

    [Jeff] If a head falls on a desk and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? I’m certainly capable of typing “fascism” w/o copying and pasting, but I do read from a lot of sources and the phrase may have stuck with me. A quick search for “fact, fiction or fascism” on Google yields over 600,000 hits (with this blog being # 1 by the way).

  • Troy Keith

    After spending weeks pulling all of this together, I’m still surprised to see that we’re talking about the choice of title, but here goes..

    You may certainly interpret a definition differently, but I believe this article has reflected reality and certainly points to what’s to come if this sort of mania proceeds unchecked. The erosion of our property rights alone, not to mention the “confiscatory legislation” and taxation (carbon credits) such as the cap and trade bills looming on the horizon should throw up some flags.

    In 2009, we will even be told what kind of light bulb to buy and United Nations treaties such as Kyoto and “Law Of The Sea” pose direct threats to our national sovereignty.

    According to
    Many basic constitutional principles are being compromised to facilitate environmental investigations and prosecutions, writes Timothy Lynch, assistant director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies, in “Polluting Our Principles: Environmental Prosecutions and the Bill of Rights” (Policy Analysis no. 223). According to Lynch, federal lawmakers have authorized coercive “self-confession” programs and warrantless inspections of commercial premises. The law has stripped environmental criminal suspects of traditional legal defenses such as good faith, fair warning, and double jeopardy. Stringent regulations make it extremely difficult for legitimate businesses to operate within the law. Indeed, Lynch adds, the web of regulations has grown so dense that many observers believe compliance with the law is unachievable. Many American businesses are currently operating in what is essentially a regulatory police state. In recent years environmental criminal prosecutions have become a major interest of federal prosecutors. Each year the Department of Justice announces “record levels” of fines imposed, persons indicted, and jail time served for infractions of environmental regulations. The ostensible purpose of the criminal program is to punish and deter polluters whose actions might endanger public health and the environment. However desirable those policy objectives may be, Lynch argues, they should not obscure the means by which the government pursues its environmental mandate.
    Lynch concludes with a call for fundamental reexamination of the federal regulatory structure. Reform should begin with the immediate restoration of the legal rights and privileges that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, he says.

    America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” 2003:
    If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government. – Ron Paul states:
    The treaties are the roots of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. For Congress to back out of these laws or even to consider reducing some of the regulations that are destroying industry or private property rights would put the United States in violation of the UN treaties!

    “Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump. .” Paul Joseph Watson

    You may also enjoy these:

  • Troy Keith

    After George Carlin’s untimely death on Sunday, I thought it was appropriate to post this here.. You may have heard it on the radio or caught it on the email circuit, but I think it’s good to interject a little humor and perspective into the debate.

    George Carlin’s “The Planet Is Fine” (profanity removed)

    We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ****ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the ****ing planet?

    I’m getting tired of that “stuff”. Tired of that “stuff”. I’m tired of ****ing Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a “stuff” about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

    Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

    We’re going away. Pack your “stuff”, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

    You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You wanna know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…a******.

    So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s begun. Don’t you think that’s already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see… Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh…viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

    Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. And I can dream, can’t I? See I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron…whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.”

  • concerned citizen

    To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists” who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.

    90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in a field related to climatology or any complementary studies. Most of them are in completely unrelated subjects, and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming.

    I don’t go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
    I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
    I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
    And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climate change.

    There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because the list has been so fluffed up with air, to make it look bigger than it is.

    If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.

    Not to mention the organizers include people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks.

    PS – meteorologists are weathermen.

  • Troy Keith

    [concerned citizen] When putting this piece together, it was not my intention to deny the possibility of man-made global warming – simply to show the considerable (and growing) body of evidence to the contrary. Before we turn our society upside down and implement thousands of new regulations, fines and penalties, I think we should try to answer many of the questions still unresolved within this issue.

    Once much of this evidence began to circulate, I’ve noticed that we’re no longer inundated 24/7 with news of the impending calamity. Everything has now switched to being “green” because it’s what all good people do, but the sky doesn’t seem to be falling like it was last year.

    In fact, an increasing number of scientists (the good ones at least) are revising earlier estimates and now say that while a potential threat, global warming has been “put off for 10 years”.

    In regards to your comments about the scientists signing the U.N. petition, I thought the list was fairly impressive and covered a wide range of disciplines and nationalities. Modern climate science is much more than simple weather forecasting and we’re learning a great deal from the research of oceanographers, geologists, paleobiologists, astronomers and the like.

    When modern techniques can definitively demonstrate cyclical trends of warming and cooling throughout the history of the planet (with higher highs and lower lows than we’re experiencing now), I’m hesitant to jump on the alarmist bandwagon until more conclusive evidence is brought to the table.

Record-Eagle Blogs is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).