Global Warming Report 'Facts'
Debatable
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report late last
week in which it claims it "was more confident than ever that global
warming is man-made." What the panel does not report is the fact
environmentalists engaged in the study have an agenda to continue their economic support by
coming to such unfounded conclusions.
In the report the IPCC promotes all sorts of "end-of-the-world" situations which would go down
in history as the basest scare tactics except they influence educ-macated idiots to continue the
teaching the same stupidity to our children.(1)
Those that adhere to intentionally misreading the data or, worse, skewing the data to fit their
projected models for man-made disaster have created an world of scare tactics for more gullibles
like themselves.
One long-term, die-hard follower, meteorologist and Wall Street Journal reporter Eric Holthaus,
went so far as to admit he's willing for the human species to kill itself off in this Tweet from 927-2013 to an admirer: No children, happy to go extinct, which in and of itself, carries a certain
sadness.(2)
All environmentalists have yet to answer one basic question from this column which would have
put the Rant squarely on their side and ended any argument.
On a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study from 2011 on rising acidic levels
in the oceans, the NOAA reported the acidic levels "were higher than they had been in 800,000
years and it is because of man--specifically the West Coast citizens of the United States." The
simple question all environmentalists have avoided from the Rant since was: "Where was the
human population that could have caused the acidic levels to be higher 800,000 years ago?"
It cannot be answered because the alleged scientists involved can't fit that data into the
government funding they are receiving to keep this hoax going. So the studies continued to be
flawed due to economic pressure CREATED BY THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES to insure
their jobs!!!
Is the Earth's climate changing? Absolutely yes! Does modern man's industrial activity
contribute? Undeniably yes! But the Earth's climate has changed (and much quicker and more
volatile) in past history--when man's activity was either minimal or non-existent--by study of ice
cores from the Antarctic.
That's the (no pun intended) core problem factor the alleged scientists haven't explained,
cannot account for and thus ignore. And they have the audacity to call themselves scientists.
That's an outrage.
A secondary problem is the constant reliance on carbon dioxide levels as the chief cause of rising
temperatures and thus climate change. Carl Langner, PhD in petroleum problems based in
Loveland, CO, has presented several studies the environmental crowd routinely omits from
their agenda. His studies show temperatures rise, throughout history, before carbon dioxide
levels rise. Thus carbon dioxide levels are an effect of changing climate, not the cause. If
anything, Langner's studies indicate an increase in carbon dioxide levels create an
ultimate cooling effect on the climate and the gas levels recede as the temperature goes down.
The Rant has posed several questions to various environmental groups about this phenomenon
but they are so wedded to their belief that it is human-produced carbon dioxide that is the cause
of climate change; they won't answer or refer to some other flawed study. Fossil fuel engineers
have provided volumes of data to agree with the questions but the environmentalists cannot
because the answers simply don't fit their agenda and grass roots supporters so that data is
dismissed as "Big Oil's agenda". So the environmental crowd, thanks to mucky-mucks like Al
Gore, clings to a flawed cornerstone without seeking other answers to the problem.
Now there is evidence that Earth's surface temperatures have not changed significantly over the
past 15 years. What is the response of the environmentalists? A shrug and "You can't base
anything geologic on such a small time span which should be measured over decades and
centuries."
Au contraire. One can do so if it was human-generated change. This is because the increase level
in human activity that leads to carbon dioxide, consumption of fossil fuels, is almost double what
it was two decades past. If, and this is the crux of the hole in the environmentalists' conclusions,
man was to blame, this increased activity would have continued the warming effects without
interruption. Man's increased burning of fossil fuel alone would have forced the Earth's
temperatures to continue to climb without fail.
The environmentalists' problem is this would create a gap in their funding from government
supporters who seek to gain more control over the average person's daily activity. This makes it
unacceptable to consider other options, so it is dropped from all field studies. Thus the world
receives faulty data from the studies.
What is even more damning to the IPCC's study results are the documentation received in the
prior weeks by the Associated Press (the IPCC's version of Edward Snowden) in which
governments across the globe were dealing with the problem of how to deal with the reported
slowdown in climate temperature change.(3)
That argument should not be washed from scientific reports. But it can't be dealt with as
scientists who are truly honest and go where the data takes them are not included in the reporting
process. The world only gets one side of the report's facts.
This report was met with much pomp and ceremony from the Obama Administration and the
EPA in particular. This should have been a warning to all Americans. This report should be taken
with not only a grain of salt but a whole shaker full.
It is no coincidence that less than two weeks ago Obama and the EPA pushed tighter controls of
coal-based power plants, limits which effectively eliminate coal-powered electricity from the
national grid in the future. It is no coincidence that driving carbon dioxide controls is the top
priority of the EPA. It has nothing else to go on to sustain its unwarranted levels of funding.
If, however, this is the ultimate goal and the facts are undeniably true, the final nail in the United
Nations-enabled IPCC should be its recommendations for dealing with the problem. The Earthconcerned scientists want to hinder the developed countries but do not want the same standards
to apply to all countries which dominant the general voting process in the UN.
China and India are exempt from new standards. Thailand, Indonesia, Honduras, Guatemala,
Venezuela, Mexico and other "developing countries" throughout Africa, Asia and South America
are exempt from the standards. But it doesn't matter where the pollution comes from, it affects
the entire world if you believe the report.
Why then the exemptions? The problem for the IPCC is those exempt countries do not yet
possess the government fiat control to make it worthwhile to enforce anything on their citizens.
There they are essentially slaves already and the poor do not have resources to pay for the higher
costs.
It is not environmental concern but financial concern that is driving the results of the
'scientists.' That is the truth that has to be factored in by those who are having this garbage forced
down their throats by "environmentalist scientists."
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of
man."--Thomas Jefferson
(1)--Associated Press, 9-27-2013, Experts Say Warming Is Man-Made
(2)--The Blaze, by David Urbanski, 9-28-2013, Vegetarian Weatherman Devastated by ClimateChange Report
(3)--Associated Press, 9-19-2013, Scientists, Governments Struggle On How To Address
Warming Slowdown