THE CHILLING TRUTH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING: REALITY CHECK #2

The Chilling Truth about Global Warming

Reality Check #2

By Brannon S. Howswe

If you're beginning to get the idea that Global Warming as we know it is a myth, congratulations. But have you stopped to wonder who's behind all this myth-mongering?  There are three primary players:

1. Cosmic Humanists (New Agers). These folks believe in pantheism, that all is god and god is all and mother earth should be worshipped. Radical environmentalists and animal rights extremists--many of whom come from this group--place more value on the earth and animals than on humans.

2. Globalists and socialists. Globalists-many of whom haunt the United Nations--intend to erode America's national sovereignty and create a one-world government. The United Nations' Global Warming treaty--the Kyoto Protocol--would seriously damage America's free enterprise system and yet it does not even apply to some of the world's biggest polluters such as China and India.

3. Scientists and think-tanks. You've heard the old saying, "follow the money"? When you follow the trail behind the GW myth, it leads you to "scientists" who are willing to say anything to keep government grant money flowing their way. Some studies place U.S. government spending on climate change as high as $4 billion dollars per year. Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, explains how this works in an article entitled "Fanatics, Heretics and the Truth about Global Warming":

Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. Dr. Patrick Michaels, a leading opponent to the global warming scaremongers, calls it the federal/science paradigm. He describes it this way: Tax $ = Grants = Positive Feedback Loop to Get more Grants.

Says Dr. Michaels, "What worker bee scientist is going to write a proposal saying that global warming is exaggerated and he doesn't need the money? Certainly no one wanting advancement in the agency! There is no alternative to this process when paradigms complete with each other for finite funding." The only ones who can openly oppose the party line of the day are those who don't need the grants or who have some other source of funding. There aren't many[1].

DeWeese goes on to detail why there is so much money in the Global Warming racket:

The money is in global warming because it's being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. They want power in Washington, power on the international stage, power over economic development, power over international monetary decisions, and power over energy. In short, power over the motor world. It's driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.[2]

The GW crowd has told us that manmade carbon dioxide is the reason for the supposed rise in global temperatures. However, Robert Essenhigh, professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University, gives the lie to their claim:

The two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However–and this point is continually missed–the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done. So, if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming.[3]  [emphasis mine]

As I've pointed out, the reality is that the temperature of the earth goes up and down in cycles. And the cause of the up-cycle is the sun. Perhaps we need legislation to control our big solar neighbor in the sky? You might note, too, that--according to Access to Energy--Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are also warming up. It's doubtful U. S. companies have caused that.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington D.C. and who chairs the Institute's Science Advisory Board, gave a lecture on February 12, 2008 at the University of Texas entitled, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change." Dr. Baliunas says the warming and cooling of the earth is more related to solar variability than it is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, the increase and decrease in solar output has led to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth.[4]

So if you think the variation of temperature by a degree or two in one way or another is worthy of destroying America, free enterprise, and our national sovereignty, then hop on the band wagon. Otherwise, keep your cool, and don't buy the nonsense.

By Brannon Howse Email: Brannon@worldviewweekend.com Click here for bio and archived articles

WE NEED TO USE LESS Posted On: 04/09/08 08:43:18 AM Age 64, OH George, redefining our energy needs is the solution. Americans are hogs to put it in simple terms. My electric bill is $23 a month but I have a friend in Dallas who has an electric bill of $400 per month. Both house holds are for two people. If every house was insulated properly, and energy conservation was a priority, that would solve our current situation. If my energy use is at $400 per month then my roof is not large enough for a solar panel to fill the need. But if my energy use is $23 then my roof is more than big enough to fill my needs with a solar panel. It is possible right now to make a car that would run most days from work and back without using any fuel or very little. But this car would not be a 5000 pound SUV. Not even to mention, if Americans would get off their duff and ride a bike to work. The US has spent all of it's money on pro sports stadiums and entertainment and not invested in things such as bike trails along all roads and mass transit. Lou Needs Posted On: 04/08/08 06:40:07 PM Age 61, MO Perhaps we need to redefine our needs and the methods we use to produce them. Nuclear energy results in seriously unbiodegradable residues, that if not contained properly can cause contamination of ground water and birth defects. George Cancilla Problem with solar Posted On: 04/06/08 08:35:51 AM Age 29, TX ...We don't have enough ground space for enough solar panels to cover our needs, much less our current consumption. Same is true of wind and hydro. We need to use nuclear--and guess who's against that?--Mrs. Pilgrim My husband's aunt Posted On: 04/06/08 08:34:08 AM Age 29, TX My husband has a very beloved aunt, who gave our baby daughter a really beautiful sweater. It was handmade, and it was intricate. I wrote in the thank-you note that I was hesitant to use it, because I was afraid it would be ruined. She wrote back and told me that she had made it to be used, and that she could make another one if it were torn or stained; and besides, the baby would grow out of it quickly enough...It made me think: God made this world, and He made it to be used, not to be wrapped in tissue and stored away. We'll soon be getting a new one, so there's nothing wrong with "everyday use" of the planet, is there? (By the way, the last time I heard about "acid rain," it was just under 20 years ago...)--Mrs. Pilgrim Acid Rain,big Auto, and "the American Way" Posted On: 04/04/08 12:19:19 AM Age 51, PA I can barely remember, but I'm not mistaken, when not only was industry darkening our skies but nearly every home had coal furnaces. When the boilers at the school were fired the coal soot would show on the snow through the neighborhood. There is no doubt that the air today is much clearer than then. The Pittsburgh area no longer has the sun blotted out by smoke and soot. I still live in an ares where electricity is produced by coal burning. A drive by the plants shows much water vapor being produced, but no smoke. Are these plants pollution free? No! but the improvements, in my lifetime, are impressive. In nations as large as the US or Canada, autos and trucks are necessary. The next big step for them will be water power. Breaking the molecules apart and burning the hydrogen, onboard. It's being done now, but meeting intense resistance from big oil(profits) and government(taxes). Government being the biggest impediment. How to replace all the taxes oil brings in? God has blessed the Americas because the people worshiped Him and for the most part lead lives disdaining evil. Our sliding into immorality/evil is so evident, that our environmental, economic and societal problems should be no surprise. Greed has replaced compassion. Even among those whose pretense is "saving the planet". re: what are we protecting? Posted On: 04/03/08 07:43:26 PM Age 41, CANADA This is a very good question indeed. I believe you'll find the answer in Brannon's final paragraph of his article: --quote-- So if you think the variation of temperature by a degree or two in one way or another is worthy of destroying America, free enterprise, and our national sovereignty, then hop on the band wagon... --quote-- Having subscribed to the Worldview Network newsletter for some time now I've seen a consistent pattern of thought. I've come to the conclusion that the worldview that is promoted here is more of an "American Manifest Destiny" worldview that presumes the a never-ending dominance of the "American Way" in this world. The prominence of the American coat of arms and/or the American flag on all the promotional posters on this website only serves to reinforce this sense for me. Please don't take these comments as being anti-American; I simply believe that to form a truly Biblical worldview, we need to remember who God's chosen people are, and that God's purposes for his worldwide church will be centered around the complete fullfillment of prophecy as it relates to his chosen people (this may or may not include preserving American free-enterprise, or America as super-power for that matter). Back to the point of "global warming"... I think Brannon is completely missing the opportunity to frame this from a Biblical worldview perspective, and has instead presented it from a "we must preserve the American Way" perspective. It's not important whether or not CO2 emissions are causing global warming which might destroy the world... God is sovereign! What's important is that we do know they cause adverse health effects and respiratory disease through the byproduct of smog. As believers, we should have been advocating for zero-emission vehicles long before the global warming scare! Since we are commanded to be good stewards (not worshipers) of what God has given us, this is our moral responsibility not only to God, but also to our children. Related thought: it will be interesting to see if big-auto and big-oil eventually face the same legal fate as big-tobbacco! what are we protecting? Posted On: 04/03/08 09:50:40 AM Age 27, IL What I am concerned about is us defending our "consumerism" from some quasi theological standpoint. It's an issue. Acid rain is not a made up piece of liberal propaganda. I really have a hard time understanding what we are defending. Exscuse me... Posted On: 04/02/08 05:15:34 PM Age 61, MO It remains to be seen if any accusations about the motives of global warming advocates are true of false. The accusations are out there for deliberation. It does not matter whether this article addresses these motives, The article does generate enough information to cause inquiry about these motives. There is nothing immoral or evil about stating one's opinion. George Cancilla On Skepticism and Other Motives Posted On: 04/02/08 04:20:46 PM Age 72, AR Never has a concept or individual action or function in the realm of human activity and knowledge advanced without someone first being skeptical, asking the question "Why are we doing this?" or "Could we do this better, or understand this better?" Thus, skepticism about global warming, or anything else, is entirely appropriate. Indeed, science begins with skepticism and travels the path of inquiry to understanding. Contrarily, to argue against assertions, conjectures, even substantiated conclusions, by people who have spent their productive lives seeking understanding of something, anything but in this case climate change and its causes and effects, by questioning their motives rather than their processes, results and thinking is nothing more than bearing false witness to put it into the terminology of those who think all knowledge must have religious basis. To make such false accusations for motives nowhere explained in this article and without substantiation qualifies as an immoral, even evil, act. Oil dependency Posted On: 04/02/08 01:48:47 PM Age 61, MO There is nothing wrong with moving away from oil dependency. As a matter of fact, more of an effort should be made to implement solar energy sources for power. Solar energy sources include solar panels, wind generators, and hyro electric. It may not provide enough efficient energy to run big manufacturing operations, but then we don't really need big manufacturing operations. Alternative energy might cause us to have slow down, but maybe that is exactly what we need to do. I personally don't see why so many people need to be flying somewhere all the time. George Cancilla