Calling The Low Down Varmint Out...

A voice of reason has appeared from an unexpected place. Czech President Vaclav Klaus has challenged alleged global warming 'expert' Al Gore to a debate about global warming. Not surprisingly, Gore isn't willing to intelligently discuss the evidence for or against global climate change or its possible causes. (Perhaps he is unable to do so?)

Klaus said, "It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda." Ahh, Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler would be so proud!

The Czech President has recently written a book that questions the true motive of the climate change propagandists titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? Klaus says that the thing most endangered is basic human freedoms and prosperity.

Klaus compares the tactics and aims of the environmental alarmists to the tactics used by the communists in his country during his lifetime.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said. "In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added. Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change....

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming. "It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

Sound familiar? It is basically the same thing said by the founder of the Weather Channel months ago.

I have said many times (even in the midst of last summer's blistering heat) that I do not believe that any permanent global warming is taking place. I believe that any heating trends can be more easily explained by solar radiation patterns than by carbon emissions. This seems evident to me from a comparison of the amount of "greenhouse gas" emitted into the atmosphere by humans as compared to that given off by nature itself. A single volcanic eruption contains many times more "greenhouse gas" than all of mankind's pollution combined. Thus, you will have a hard time convincing me that any warming (or cooling) trends are being caused by man's usage of carbon.

But lets suppose, just for the sake of argument, that these Chicken Littles were right. Let's consider how life would be if the environazis got their way and took us back to the Stone Age. Even then it would seem that there isn't any feasible way for humans to avoid carbon-based environmental impact. Humans need heat to survive. Anything below 98° F and we start needing some supplemental heat. And there are precious few places on planet earth that are 98° F night and day year round. (Thank God!)

Clothing can allow us to take that number down much lower, but manufacturing clothing in a modern society requires machinery, machinery requires electricity, and the most common source of electricity is combustion. Of course we could go back to using animal skins for clothing, but the environmentalists won't like that either.

There is also the problem of cooking food. Even vegetarians typically cook their food. And if we were to use animal skins for clothing, wouldn't it be wasteful to kill an animal just for its skin? (Seems like I have heard that argument somewhere before....) Thus, if you are going to eat yon mastodon, you'd best have a way cook it. Once again, combustion is going to be required.

Then there's the problem of shelter. Last time I checked there weren't that many habitable caves in the North Carolina Piedmont. That means we are going to have to figure out some place to stay. Well, we can go back to animal skins. (I can hear the animal rights folk howling even now....) There is also lots of nice red mud around here, but to make mud into brick requires baking it - more carbon. We could cut down trees to make cabins, but that reduces the number of trees which help to remove the carbon from the air. It would seem in our environmental Utopia that shelter may be a problem.

There is another problem that we have learned about too: animal flatulence. All those cows are farting the place up and pushing us towards global catastrophe. I guess it is good that all those cowboys nearly wiped out the bison herds back at the turn of the century. Millions of gassy buffalo would have probably pushed us over the edge.

I suppose that many who have read my rants against global warming might assume that I don't care about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I care very much about it. My problem with most environmental issues is that they tend to tilt at windmills.

The issue of global warming is a hoax. It isn't an issue, but is something that is being greedily exploited to further other ends. Al Gore is exploiting "global warming" to put himself in the limelight and assuage his wounded ego after being rejected by the American people. He also, by the way, is exploiting it to make himself filthy, stinking rich through his investments in these "green" companies.

Politicians are exploiting it to line their pockets with bribes from companies that will benefit from new regulations and from those that would be hurt by new regulations. They are also using "global warming" to line their pockets with revenue from bogus carbon offset programs. And of course, let us not forget that it gives them a leverage point to obtain power over the people, exploiting this lie to induce people to give up their freedoms and prosperity.

Finally, environmentalists are exploiting "global warming" to make some marginal gains toward their agendas, and "scientists" are exploiting it to bilk grant money from various governments. These reasons are why I so vigorously oppose "global warming."

There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns with real-world practical solutions. Pollution is a huge problem. It is clear that air quality has suffered as our cities have grown. Some progress has been made at reducing automobile emissions, but why don't we push on and see if we can't break away from petroleum and find a cleaner alternative? It will take some time, but if we can put a hunk of metal on Mars we should be able to collectively figure out a way to tell the gas companies bye-bye.

Why do we allow companies to dump their waste into our rivers? We should use the same policy with manufacturers worldwide that Momma did: "If you make the mess clean it up." Companies should have to have waste mitigation plans before they are allowed to manufacture the first widget. Would it be more expensive? Yes, it would. But I'd be willing to bet that manufacturers would find a better way to do it if they were forced to. Once they had discovered that way I'd be willing to bet that the prices could come down. (Whether they would or not is a different rant for a different post!) But what about the countries that wouldn't adhere to that standard?!! Don't trade with them. DUH!

Or perhaps on a more personal level, why do we allow people to litter? (This includes throwing cigarette butts out of cars, by the way.)

Why do we allow companies to use packaging materials that are not environmentally friendly? Why are we so addicted to plastics when glass, paper, and metal are much more easily recycled?

There are also water quality issues that are being raised by the irresponsible development taking place throughout the country. In North Carolina these practices threaten to destroy the state's only native trout. (Indeed, Brook Trout are threatened throughout their native range along the entire Appalachian Range from Georgia to Maine.)

All of these issues would be much easier to fix than "global warming." (Especially if it turns out that this purported climate change is being caused by the sun!)

North Carolina's Wildlife Commission has done a stellar job in reclaiming severely damaged river ecosystems. With the work that they have done they have begun to see very encouraging results in the resurgence of threatened flora and fauna. Their re-introduction of deer and turkeys have been wildly successful, and I have hope for the successful reintroduction of the red wolf and elk. It would be wonderful to see these animals thriving in our land again. (Although they will create their own problems too as we have seen with the invasion of coyotes.) I have also seen surprisingly quick results from the size and creel limits imposed on many saltwater fish species. There seem to be far more fish available in just a few short years following the introduction of these limits.

My point is that the real environmental problems facing our world can be dealt with successfully when they are approached with intelligence and TRUE scientific inquiry instead of the junk being passed off as science by so many. There are plenty of resources in our world to allow us to take advantage of them if we will be wise about it and not succumb to greed. It is high time that we start using our own brains and questioning why so many "scientists" are afraid of debate on issues like climate change and evolution. It is time that we stop giving these people money to perpetuate their lies. We cannot keep accepting that what "they" say is true. Too often it isn't. The money that will be wasted on "preventing" global warming would be much better used addressing real problems.