Scare Tactics

Quietly, over the last two to three weeks, a lot of information about Anthropogenic Global Warming has come out that has shattered the myth of scientific consensus. I have been gathering these links, with the intention to do an indepth post but there has just been so much information that I have to make it a "quick links" post instead. Please go visit all of the links so that you can get all the different reasons why these peer reviewed scientists disagree with Al Gore and the proponents of AGW.

First comes this story from Daily Tech which tells you what the MSM refuses to tell you about the Arctic ice loss. It illustrates just how agenda driven the agenda media has become.

Second was this column in the Times of London that goes under the title "Global Warming: Reasons Why It Might Not Actually Exist" and it goes into details under such categories as "Temperatures Are Falling Not Rising" and "The Earth Was Warmer 1,000 Years Ago" and "Ice Is Not Disappearing".

The TOL then followed up a couple of days later with this column entitled "2008 Was The Year Man-Made Global Warming Was Disproved!"

Then came this MSNBC (believe it or not) story that finally admitted that the global warming debate has been taking place without all of the necessary data!

The occasionally acrimonious debate about the planet's climate has been missing a key component: accurate measurements of how much carbon dioxide is in the air and how it is being recycled by Earth.

Which leads one to ask how can we be so sure CO2 is "bad" if we don't know how much is there and how the Earth uses it????? And even if it is bad what good will curtailing human activities do when it only accounts for 3% of the total CO2 output in the world? Are we going to kill off ALL animal life and plant life too?

Most carbon dioxide — about 97 percent — comes from natural sources. That's roughly 300 billion metric tons per year of CO2 gas from breathing animals, decaying plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions and other naturally occurring phenomena.

Then came this column in Townhall which talks about the left's opposition to "clean coal technology" and why their oppositions are based on a 40 year old paradigm.

Lastly is this column from a HuffPo diarist (yes you read that right - the Huffington Post) who called for Al Gore to APOLOGIZE to the world for spreading the climate change hysteria.

All of this leads to a long list of questions - starting with "Since when did the Scientific Method take on a political quotient?" I got that question (and the attached) from a friend who really put a lot of thought into what he wrote below.

The Polar Bear has become the poster child for climate change; they are being threatened by the melting ice and shrinking habitat. If this is the case, then Darwin was wrong, because the polar bear evolved practically overnight.

See, there are vast green growth areas under the ice above the Arctic Circle; areas that show there was a vast ecosystem that supported flowering plants, grasses and even trees. The evidence supports that this ecosystem suffered a catastrophic change anywhere from 50,000 -
10,000 BC, according to scientific measuring standards. The preservation of these areas proves that the climate change happened suddenly, due to the fact that there is little to no decomposition in the plants found there.

If this is the case, there wasn't biological time enough for the polar bear to evolve from another sub-species of bear into the animal environmentalists know and love today. It existed prior to the cataclysm in a form just like it does today - and it thrived and survived and found food and chased sea lions and frolicked in the autumn leaves... UNCHANGED!

So what is it - is Darwin wrong or is Global Warming the hoax that we think it is? Or perhaps, both? Global Warming is not the threat that it has been made out to be. Rather, it is a political argument by socialists to equalize the economic playing field of the masses. It's the only way they can scare us into accepting their agenda.

My only change/addition to my friends argument is that the global warming is not the hoax. MANMADE global warming is. I also think that the root cause of the hysteria is not necessarily a socialist agenda as it is an elitist agenda. Al Gore and the people pushing the hysteria on us have their money. It will not hurt them financially if we enact the extremist agenda that they are pushing in Cap and Trade policies and the Kyoto Accord. However, it will hurt the poorest among us the most and the poorest countries will get hit the hardest!

But then again, they have never really cared about the shrinking middle class. The poorer we become the more we are forced to rely on "Nanny government" to take care of us from cradle to grave. "1984" here we come!