A Minuteman1Blog Opinion
There is today one issue that has been propagandized to the point that should you the common sense to come out as a disbeliever your mocked and ridiculed in every conceivable way. It seems that everywhere you turn from TV sitcoms, to politicians, to anywhere in the news media, to even the morons on the Weather Channel everybody has something to say to perpetuate the doom and gloom and the end of the world scenarios that the best science fiction writers would have a difficult time coming up with. It is also an issue that the scientific community itself cannot seem to agree on a cause for, or if it even exists at all. Of course the issue about which I am speaking is the "theory" of man made global warming and all cataclysmic nonsense that goes along with it.
How the government chooses to deal with this issue is extremely important to voters for two very important reasons, 1) the scientific community cannot agree on the cause or even if man can alter climate one way of the other, and 2) the potential expense to the economy of attempting to deal with it will be astronomical. So with both candidates apparently favoring some sort of government intervention, voters "must" pay attention to see which candidate would waste the most money on an issue that quite possibly does not even exist, or at the very least a problem that we may very well be unable to have any impact or effect on regardless of how much taxpayer money we throw at it. To spend any amount of money on any issue the cause of which is totally unknown is much more that ridiculous, it’s foolhardy and, quite simply, stupid, all of which means it, is more than likely, LIBERAL. But then, the fact that something is unproven or stupid never stopped politicians from either party from freely spending taxpayer money to "fix" it if they thought there was something to be gained from the attempt. Especially if doing so has any chance of making the government bigger and bring in tons more money for the government to blow.
The whole global warming discussion has basically turned into nothing more than a huge public relations stunt. What makes scientists who claim global warming is man made any more credible than those who say it is not. Thousands say global warming is purely cyclical and nothing man does can alter climate one way or the other, that it is simply impossible. What makes that opinion wrong? More often than not those who are out there claiming the opposite have some sort of ulterior motive, it’s not that they believe what they’re saying but somebody is paying them to say it. And of course this is an issue where once again the media has played and continues to play a major role in shaping public opinion by advancing those who advocate the man made aspect of global warming and ignoring those who say otherwise. It has now gotten to the point where a majority of Americans, even though they have a zero understanding of the issue, want their government to do something about it. Hence, we have both Presidential candidates advocating their own costly plans to deal with a possibly nonexistent crisis.
Of course one the lead nut jobs in the advancement of this crazy theory is none other than Al "sore loser" Gore. Mr. Nobel Prize Winner himself got his little award for promoting the whole silly notion that because the planet may be warming it’s all man’s fault and only man, by throwing tons of money at it and having the government control the manner of how that money is to be utilized, can change the most horrible outcome imaginable. Gore is nothing but an opportunist and a scammer, but you have to admit that thus far it has worked pretty darn well for him, after all it did get him that Nobel Prize. But his claims are all just a bit far fetched. Two of his scariest and most attention grabbing claims are rising sea levels and deadlier hurricanes. Gore likes to speak of the horrible consequences of an 18-20 foot rise in sea level over an unspecified time frame using computer graphics showing major parts of coastal cities like New York and San Francisco and even entire regions like South Florida under water. Yet the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (which Gore considers to be the gold standard of consensus science) projects an increase of 7 to 23 inches over the nest "century". The lower end of that range is about what has occurred (without serious consequence) over the last two centuries. But, the public doesn’t closely follow the details of global warming science, but the disjunction between hype and reality is so big that even casual observers can smell a rat. Add to that the fact that Gore simply could not resist exploiting Hurricane Katrina, America’s deadliest disaster in years. He blames global warming for the storm that claimed over 1000 lives in August of 2005, driving home the message, with help from his leftist allies of course, with image after image of post-Katrina devastation. Gore continues to assert that Katrina portends a dangerous new era where deadlier storms are much more common. But then, how does he explain the 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons, which were unusual only in how little hurricane damage occurred? Well that would be just an inconvenient truth.
So just how is it that we have gotten to the point where we now find ourselves and where it is now that a majority of Americans all seem to believe that yes, the sky is in fact falling. Well, the answer to that is the fact that on a daily basis we are inundated with nothing but pure propaganda regarding this issue. Some of the factors that make up that propaganda include the fact that five Supreme Court Justices, on a still too leftist court, thought it appropriate to compel the EPA to consider global warming issues as well as state and local efforts to bypass the fed and impose their own controls, all seem to be forcing Washington’s hand. Since when is anything like this something to be decided by a court, even the Supreme Court? Also the ever present and very anti-American UN has seen fit to jump on the global warming bandwagon since it sees it as a way to harm the United States. Its IPCC report, received widespread coverage in the news media as the "smoking gun" evidence that mankind is in fact warming the planet to dangerously high levels. And of course good ol’ Al Gore is doing his best to create and perpetuate the same nonsense through his book and movie has also done much to drive home the message and to add to the brain washing of an unsuspecting public. Add to these the constant drumbeat that continues as virtually every natural disaster occurs, from storms, to drought, to floods, to wildfires, to disease outbreaks, somehow gets pinned on global warming.
I guess now the question we Americans should be asking ourselves is where do we go from here? But also, why should we be the only ones footing a bill for the rest if the world, again, for a problem we may have absolutely no control over? This country is constantly being demonized as being the world’s top global warming culprit, just ask Obama, but that is about to change. China is now very close to surpassing the U.S. and becoming the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Did anybody watch the Olympics this past summer? Anyway, when this shift happens it "should" have a tremendous practical as well as symbolic significance and it "should" dim the appeal of unilateral U.S. action. That is if people are paying attention, and how often does that happen? Oh, and by the way, China isn’t slowly edging past American, it’s blowing our damn doors off! According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which believes China has already surpassed America, emissions in China rose 9 percent in 2006 on top of a 12 percent increase in 2005. Meanwhile, America’s emissions have been growing much more slowly averaging little more than 1 percent per year and according to the Department of Energy they even declined 1.3 percent in 2006. Now, even if the U.S. were to saddle itself with economy-damaging constraints, it would barely begin to offset China’s projected increases. An since, thus far anyway, China has adamantly refused to agree to any controls while arguing that economic growth as their top priority why should the entire issue default to America? I guess we’re just supposed to suck it up and to unilaterally trash our economy to have little of no impact on an issue that may or may not even exist. HUH?
And don’t even get me started on that brilliant piece of international garbage called The Kyoto Protocol. I tell you the morons who dreamt this piece of crap up should be taken out behind the barn. This thing has been an abject failure with data showing that nearly every participating country having higher carbon dioxide emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997. And yet, AND YET, your still hear the Pro-Kyoto Protocol activists, and morons like Jimmy Carter, along with the media continuing to heap praise on the treaty for its carbon emissions goals, even though they rarely explore the obvious question of whether these goals are actually being met. It’s all pure propaganda, and nothing else.
So with all the scare tactics that are now in play where is it exactly that we are headed. What master plan does the government have that it wishes to put into play that will wreck havoc on this country? What some of you may remember from a few months back was the Climate Security Act. Now at the heart of this brilliant little piece of legislation was a hot new anti global warming scheme fondly referred to as "cap and trade". This is something that both McCain and Obama have embraced as a "practical" way of combating global warming. What that bill aimed to do was to gradually cut U.S. emission of greenhouse gases by 2050 to 60 to 65 percent below 2005 levels. An interesting factoid here is that both McCain and Obama favor even deeper cuts. Keep in mind here that that is an even more ambitious goal than the one in the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, and we know how well that has worked up to this point. Well needless to say that attempt failed because there were still enough sane members of Congress who saw that it far to burdensome to the economy. But the basic idea never died. Cap-and-trade involves setting yearly caps for emissions, and divvying up allowed emissions each year among industries in the from of carbon credits. Cleaner companies that don’t use up all their credits could sell their surplus to emitters. The theory goes that by making firms pay to pollute would be a way to encourage them to adopt energy-efficient technologies and/or switch from fossil fuels to cleaner alternatives, thereby lowering emissions. While the premise may sound somewhat feasible, it has proven to be pretty much unworkable and very expensive. Since the European Union adopted a cap-and-trade program three years ago, CO2 output is actually UP several percentage points. GEE, sounds like a good idea to me! Whereas the EU gave away carbon credits for free, the Senate bill would auction off some credits, a few at first then more each year. Supposedly by 2050, the auctions would raise a total of $3.3 trillion in new revenues. RIGHT! When has government math EVER bee right? And let’s just say, for the sake of argument that this amount of money become available. What might the plans be for that? Now you might think that Washington would give some of it back by slashing taxes, after all a bill like the one most recently proposed inflicts a lot of economic pain. Yet that while the backers of this most recent bill like to claim that it would create lots of new "green jobs" there’s no credible evidence to really back that claim up. What was found that enactment of the bill such as this would cause a net loss of 1.2-2.3 million jobs. And add to that the Heritage Foundation estimates that from 2012-2030 every household will pay on average an extra $8,870 to buy energy, and that includes higher gasoline prices. Now as for that supposed $3.3 trillion dollars the Democrats already have that money spent. Their plan is to "give" $800 Billion to the poor, $1.5 Trillion to their pet projects (wildlife adaptation, international aid and mass transit) and special interests. The rest, $900 Billion to "deficit reduction", yeah right!
This idea of "cap-and trade" no matter how flawed an idea it is has not gone away and is supported to some degree by both McCain and Obama. While their plans differ slightly both would cause severe damage to the economy with little of no change to the environment. The only thing that would change would be the amount of money being collected by the government coffers. The whole idea of global warming is nothing more than a scheme to inflict on an unsuspecting public a new tax tat would bring to the government trillions of dollars at the expense of our economy and millions of our jobs. All under the premise that we’re making the world warmer when in fact we may not be. Until there is a worldwide general consensus that what man is doing is in fact causing this to happen it makes absolutely NO SENSE for America to unilaterally trash its own economy.
Position of John McCain: He wants to reduce carbon dioxide by 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Companies would sell unused credits for cash, with the profit motive coordinating efforts of venture capitalist, corporate planners, entrepreneurs and environmentalist to reduce emissions
Position of Obama: He would reduce carbon dioxide by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. The government would auction 100 percent of the credits, using part of the proceeds to develop cleaner energy sources and help families pay energy bills.
Both plans sound nice in a touchy feely kind of way and who after all wants to trash the environment? But, there is absolutely no supporting data that say any of this will work. IN FACT, the supporting data collected thus far from countries that have tried it, point to the fact that IT WILL NOT WORK!! I guess the point of this whole thing is that we cannot afford to go off half cocked regarding the trashing of our economy when regarding an issue, as important as it may be, that we simply cannot change no matter how well intentioned it may sound to try. We must not allow ourselves to be talked into something where in the end we’re going to be the only ones made to suffer!