Global Warming, The Big Con
Dale Netherton
May 07, 2006
A concern with climate change is the most ill advised cause a zealot can latch on to. Why? Well in the first place a significant climate change in a person’s lifetime is so miniscule it means nothing to an individual during his era on earth. Secondly, to hold that every spot on earth will be affected in an adverse way says that people living on the equator and people living in the Arctic will both have radical changes in their surroundings that they cannot satisfactory adjust to. Third, a climate trend much like the stock market fluctuates and since there have been seven recorded ice ages it is ridiculous to assume there will never be another ice age and/or the associated trend toward cooler temperatures. Fourth, why wouldn’t a warmer climate be better for many people? Lower fuel bills, greater access to warm weather activities, longer growing seasons and an expansion of tropical vegetation just to mention a few advantages of warming the planet.
If it was predicted ( as it was a few decades ago ) the earth was cooling and an ice age was imminent and man really had the capability to warm the climate, wouldn’t that be comforting to know. But how many global warming advocates would be confident that by turning off their regulations we could avoid the deep freeze? You hear nary a peep about this capability for they have no idea how much emission control to rescind to raise the earth a degree or so. and besides it is not the uniform temperature of the earth that we are talking about. The deep shade of the rain forest would obviously not be as affected as the sunny desert or the blacktop of Washington D.C. And how would you get a 100 % average that would be meaningful given all the multitude of conditions that exist in oh so many places? How would you know that your statistical sample was even close? A 95% probability still has a 5% chance of being wrong at any given time and temperatures vary in many locations simply because there are multitudes of variables even on the same garden plot.
The global warming crowd wants you to believe they have a handle on what is really happening in all places at all times and they are using the typical zealot’s tactic of repeating and repeating the same mantra until it becomes a popular misconception. It is sort of like jumping on President Bush’s depiction of the energy situation as a crisis because of our “addiction” to oil. We have no addiction. An addiction is something you cannot get along without. We simply use oil because most of our energy generation has been built to use oil. It was the most economical fuel and won out over the disadvantages of coal, the bad press of nuclear energy and the failure of alternatives sources to match oil’s advantages. But because the President said something the New York Times could use to denigrate the American spirit, the notion of addiction was splashed and repeated until it is now practically unquestioned. The same thing happened and continues to happen with global warming.
Many people latch onto an idea because they want to be in step with popular opinion. Besides if you are in research why ignore grants and awards centered around political propaganda? That is where the money will come from for laboratories, stipends, awards and prestige. Having a fluid view of truth diminishes any concern about whether the research has any validity. Having a wishy-washy philosophy that equates subjective opinion with absolute fact also alleviates any deep pondering. Thus we have “scientists” seriously considering UFO’s, spotted owl habitat, the psychology of races and a global warming theory that is passed off as a phenomena.
In a word we have been duped. There is no way to tell what the long term trend in the temperature of the planet is. You have to define a time period and this necessarily is arbitrary. If you project beyond your lifetime ( hell, the weatherman gets it wrong half the time on a three day forecast) how will you know if your projections were right and at what place on earth? Who can project what events or inventions may modify your projections? The dirty little secret about the global warming fad is it can be utilized as a political football as long as it has some semblance of recognition. This is why it is repeated as if it is an accepted fact by many who want to march and chant and get laws passed that they mistakenly believe will do future generations some good. Again it is altruism at work infiltrating the mind of the mistaken to work toward sacrifice of as many that are not downtrodden, weak, pitiful or doomed. Same old story, slightly different concretes.
When you hear about global warming, you might ask the proponent why global warming is of more concern than say, “ America warming” or New York City warming or Tupelo , Mississippi warming or Moscow ( didn’t they just have a miserable winter?). And when they say it will be everywhere ask them if it will be uniform or will some be colder than normal and others be hotter than normal? And if they say yes, then ask them, “ Isn’t that what we are experiencing now and isn’t this what our ancestors also experienced?” When they try to differentiate between what they say will be different and what has been history you will see that global warming is a sham based on nothing but an attempt to tie modern industrialization to a deterioration of the planet we live on. Since the life span on the most industrialized countries surpasses the life span by decades on the primitive ( untouched by man) areas of the planet, decide who is protecting their environment and who is struggling in a primitive lifestyle that is dangerous and short.
The man on the corner with the sandwich board talking about disaster being upon us has been around a long time. The end of the earth has not come and when that man’s message becomes .’ things are getting hotter” you can be rest assured he is only trying to concoct another fear that will get him attention and cause you to doubt the wisdom of living in a civilized world. He doesn’t want you utilizing resources for man’s benefit and eventually wants you to join his morbid egalitarian hope so that others will confirm his rants as true whether they happen or not. The preaching that goes with global warming is the preaching that resonates with all who respond to a passionate presentation where they can join in the chants and feel that “ surely so many can’t be wrong”. Review the crowds at the Hitler rallies and consider how those crowd numbers meant something as wrong as the world has ever witnessed. A political reaction to irrational passion is not the road to a world of reason. And neither is the precursor, which is a movement without an intellectual foundation, wide unsubstantiated theories and unverifiable projections. Such movements are con games designed to gain power. They only need to be challenged to be neutralized and forgotten. Cons can’t survive exposure.
If it was predicted ( as it was a few decades ago ) the earth was cooling and an ice age was imminent and man really had the capability to warm the climate, wouldn’t that be comforting to know. But how many global warming advocates would be confident that by turning off their regulations we could avoid the deep freeze? You hear nary a peep about this capability for they have no idea how much emission control to rescind to raise the earth a degree or so. and besides it is not the uniform temperature of the earth that we are talking about. The deep shade of the rain forest would obviously not be as affected as the sunny desert or the blacktop of Washington D.C. And how would you get a 100 % average that would be meaningful given all the multitude of conditions that exist in oh so many places? How would you know that your statistical sample was even close? A 95% probability still has a 5% chance of being wrong at any given time and temperatures vary in many locations simply because there are multitudes of variables even on the same garden plot.
The global warming crowd wants you to believe they have a handle on what is really happening in all places at all times and they are using the typical zealot’s tactic of repeating and repeating the same mantra until it becomes a popular misconception. It is sort of like jumping on President Bush’s depiction of the energy situation as a crisis because of our “addiction” to oil. We have no addiction. An addiction is something you cannot get along without. We simply use oil because most of our energy generation has been built to use oil. It was the most economical fuel and won out over the disadvantages of coal, the bad press of nuclear energy and the failure of alternatives sources to match oil’s advantages. But because the President said something the New York Times could use to denigrate the American spirit, the notion of addiction was splashed and repeated until it is now practically unquestioned. The same thing happened and continues to happen with global warming.
Many people latch onto an idea because they want to be in step with popular opinion. Besides if you are in research why ignore grants and awards centered around political propaganda? That is where the money will come from for laboratories, stipends, awards and prestige. Having a fluid view of truth diminishes any concern about whether the research has any validity. Having a wishy-washy philosophy that equates subjective opinion with absolute fact also alleviates any deep pondering. Thus we have “scientists” seriously considering UFO’s, spotted owl habitat, the psychology of races and a global warming theory that is passed off as a phenomena.
In a word we have been duped. There is no way to tell what the long term trend in the temperature of the planet is. You have to define a time period and this necessarily is arbitrary. If you project beyond your lifetime ( hell, the weatherman gets it wrong half the time on a three day forecast) how will you know if your projections were right and at what place on earth? Who can project what events or inventions may modify your projections? The dirty little secret about the global warming fad is it can be utilized as a political football as long as it has some semblance of recognition. This is why it is repeated as if it is an accepted fact by many who want to march and chant and get laws passed that they mistakenly believe will do future generations some good. Again it is altruism at work infiltrating the mind of the mistaken to work toward sacrifice of as many that are not downtrodden, weak, pitiful or doomed. Same old story, slightly different concretes.
When you hear about global warming, you might ask the proponent why global warming is of more concern than say, “ America warming” or New York City warming or Tupelo , Mississippi warming or Moscow ( didn’t they just have a miserable winter?). And when they say it will be everywhere ask them if it will be uniform or will some be colder than normal and others be hotter than normal? And if they say yes, then ask them, “ Isn’t that what we are experiencing now and isn’t this what our ancestors also experienced?” When they try to differentiate between what they say will be different and what has been history you will see that global warming is a sham based on nothing but an attempt to tie modern industrialization to a deterioration of the planet we live on. Since the life span on the most industrialized countries surpasses the life span by decades on the primitive ( untouched by man) areas of the planet, decide who is protecting their environment and who is struggling in a primitive lifestyle that is dangerous and short.
The man on the corner with the sandwich board talking about disaster being upon us has been around a long time. The end of the earth has not come and when that man’s message becomes .’ things are getting hotter” you can be rest assured he is only trying to concoct another fear that will get him attention and cause you to doubt the wisdom of living in a civilized world. He doesn’t want you utilizing resources for man’s benefit and eventually wants you to join his morbid egalitarian hope so that others will confirm his rants as true whether they happen or not. The preaching that goes with global warming is the preaching that resonates with all who respond to a passionate presentation where they can join in the chants and feel that “ surely so many can’t be wrong”. Review the crowds at the Hitler rallies and consider how those crowd numbers meant something as wrong as the world has ever witnessed. A political reaction to irrational passion is not the road to a world of reason. And neither is the precursor, which is a movement without an intellectual foundation, wide unsubstantiated theories and unverifiable projections. Such movements are con games designed to gain power. They only need to be challenged to be neutralized and forgotten. Cons can’t survive exposure.