Home

home
Stay Informed

stay informed
ideas

ideas
media library

media library


get involved




Login:
Password:
Register | Forgot login info


Thomas Jefferson Quote

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

ideas > Why I Question Global Warming

Why I Question Global Warming
Recently, select members of the House of Representatives questioned oil company executives about such things as “excessive profits”, “global warming”, “alternative energy”, and many other topics. The tone of the committee was generally accusatory. I was generally disgusted that Congress would signal out such an important industry for scorn and ridicule. Some members of Congress references excessive profits, when in reality oil companies do not make excessive profits. For example, Exxon oil had revenues of $385 billion in 2007 and profits of $40 billion. That is an 11 percent profit margin, which is not outrageous. Coca Cola had a profit margin over 20 percent. Google’s profit margin was 25 percent. Certainly, consumers use more of their money on food. Why doesn’t Congress single out food producers for their excessive profiteering? My disgust led me to call several offices of the Congressman and express my displeasure with their accusatory method of grilling these companies. Think about the importance of fossil fuels. Without them, we would be in the dark in the United States. While speaking with one of the employees of one of the Congressman, the subject of global warming came up. He told me that we are faced with the extinction of the human race, insinuating that if we didn’t curb our consumption of oil that humans would become extinct. He then questioned if I had ever read anything on global warming. I replied that I had read parts of the IPCC report on global warming and two books on global warming and had come to the conclusion that global warming or at least the type of man-made global warming that would require sweeping governmental intervention. Let me explain why I believe this.

First, most people that I have talked to do not know that global warming is primarily driven by an agency of the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The United Nations is not a neutral body that is absent an agenda. It is made up of primarily countries who do not share the same values as the United States. Many of these countries restrict freedoms that we take for granted. The United Nations has ambitions for power and control. They would like to reduce the sovereignty of individual nations and consolidate power in the United Nations thinking that this would bring more peace to the world. The United Nations would like nothing more than to be the savior of mankind to solve the global warming crisis. This would naturally require that the United Nations assume vast powers to cut or curb carbon emissions. This would naturally cripple the United State’s economy which is primarily driven by fossil fuels. This leads to a secondary point.

Second, the main funder of scientific research today is the federal government. Scientists, chasing federal grant money, naturally would want focus on research and findings that their political masters would like to see. The science of the climate and climate is sufficiently complex that any scientist can focus on a small enough variable to prove any point they want. If you focus on a small enough time period or a small enough area, you can prove anything you want. I can prove that global cooling is the real crisis if I focus on data existing in the 1960 and early 1970s. I can also prove that the Arctic ice cap is melting if I focus on the part of the ice cap that is melting then extrapolate upon that finding to the whole Arctic ice cap.

Third, global warming might not be a bad thing. There have been other periods of human history that have experienced very warm periods. Humans seemed to have survived those periods. In fact, there was a warm period in the 1920s, followed by a cooler period that ended in the 1970s. Scientists were talking about the global cooling crisis in the 1970s. It is highly likely that the Earth has natural mechanism for dealing with warming and cooling. For example, a natural consequence of the warming is the production of more clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds reflect solar radiation, thus bringing about a cooling. Also, it would seem that more clouds would mean more rain and more rain would mean more food. Also, global warming tends to warm the coldest parts of the planet making them more hospitable to growing and planting of food. It also increases the time for growing food and the amount of area that food can be grown in. It seems to me that global warming is not a bad thing at all because it would allow the cold spots to get warmer and enlarges the area of the Earth that can grow food. The only thing that might be a negative would be the ice caps melting and the ocean rising. But this again is not a certainty. There is no definite proof that the ice caps melting would lead to the water remaining in the ocean. If global warming, indeed, creates more clouds and rain, then it would seem that the water could be dispersed over the land. The supporters of global warming assume that the water will remain in the ocean and never leave. How do they know this is what will happen? If that was so, why wasn’t New York buried under water during the last warm phase in the 1920s. It would appear that the past indicates that warming does not lead to the ocean levels rising so as to bury existing coastal cities.
Fourth, many of these dire predictions of global warming such as increasing hurricanes, precipitation, rising sea levels, and such are created from computer models which are not accurate. If they were accurate then plugging in past data should be able to predict weather that has already happened. They do not. If scientists and climatologists cannot predict the weather more than a couple days ahead of time, how could they predict what will happen in fifty to a hundred years?

In summary, the United Nations is the major driving force behind the global warming crisis. Often, crises are used to justify government intervention and limitations of individual freedoms. The United Nations has an agenda of its own. It would like nothing more than to the organization that attempts to solve the global warming crisis through direct government intervention and restrictions. Also, the main provider of scientific funding is the federal government. The federal government has its own agenda as well. Global warming allows them to increase their power as well. It’s the crisis-government solution cycle. They talk about a crisis and then offer the solution, which is always a solution that involves their genius and their intervention. Global warming is often assumed to be a negative, but perhaps it is not. It would seem that the Earth and humans have been through periods of warming and cooling before and have survived just fine. Perhaps the Earth has natural mechanisms that ensure the temperature stays within a livable range. Finally, many of the dire predictions of natural disasters caused by global warming have their foundation in computer models that are inaccurate.

I do not dispute the idea that there is global warming at this time. I just contest the idea that it is a crisis that would require the United Nations or any other drastic government intervention at this time. It could just be that global warming is an invented crisis that will grant extensive governmental powers that will lead to restrictions on our economy and restrictions on individual freedom. I am not willing to give up my freedom so easily for a crisis that has not been vetted appropriately at this time. It appears to me that perhaps some people are to easily led to believe the prognostications of some politicians who have a vested interest in global warming and their increasing powers coming from their proposed solutions.
Contact us