F. Swemson

Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left’s Lies, Part 5

Posted on November 15 2009 12:00 pm
I'm an Objectivist, a disciple of Ayn Rand since I was 15. Graduate of NBI (Nathaniel Branden Institute) 1964 I was a philosophy major @ NYU & dropped out to join the Marine Corps Served as a Combat Photographer in late 60's I've been writing for over 20 years.
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

Click here for Part 1 of this 5-part series.

Groucho Marx once said,

”Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

I doubt that sentiment has ever more true than it is today. The entire Global Warming movement and all the idiocy that goes with it such as Cap & Trade, has become 100% political. There’s literally ZERO scientific evidence that validates the ridiculous CO2 theory that it’s based on.

Lord Monckton, in his inimitable way, explained exactly what’s really behind this entire scam to Americans quite succinctly when he displayed his “Traffic Light Tendency” during his recent presentation in Minnesota.

Recently, when Lord Monckton was on the Glenn Beck show of 10.30.09, the specific subject of the discussion from the very beginning was the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty, and the manner in which it will lead to the creation of a new “Global Government” by getting us to cede some of our sovereignty to this new entity.

Lord Monckton’s analysis about the true intentions of the participants, in response to Glenn’s questions, was spot on as usual, however as I said in the first part of this series, I believe that arguing against the AGW hoax, solely based on political and economic grounds, without exposing the underlying scientific lies that it’s based on, is the wrong way to tackle the problem. I continue to believe that, and despite some recent events which indicate that we MAY for the time being, be out of any IMMEDIATE danger from this travesty of reason, we shouldn’t let up on our attack, until this entire canard is dead and buried. And by “dead”, I mean that we have to drive a stake though its heart, because this nonsense, just like Islamic terrorism, has literally been going on for centuries.

On the more recent Glenn Beck show of Thursday 11.12.09, for the first time, someone (Glenn) actually had the chutzpah to spell out in precise terms the complete truth about Obama’s 3 pronged attack against our Constitution and our way of life. Cap & Trade is clearly one of those 3 key parts of his strategy. Science no longer has anything to do with it. It did for a brief while during the early 1980’s when climate statistics pointed to a possible relationship between global warming and increasing levels of CO2, however it didn’t take the scientific community very long to conclusively prove that increases in atmospheric CO2 didn’t lead to rising temperatures, but that the reverse was true, that warming, due to the earth’s natural cycles of climate change, was responsible for the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. From that point on, everything that you’ve heard and said in support of the AGW theory has been a bald faced lie, put out there for purely political purposes.

Recently however, we HAVE seen some interesting things happen. Foremost among the reasons for the signs of doubt arising in the minds of some of our more hypocritical legislators, is the fact that many of them are becoming aware of the risks they will be taking come election time, if they vote for Cap & Trade, or to ratify the Copenhagen treaty, assuming Obama signs it. But we STILL can’t afford to become complacent about this.


Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won’t be voted on until at least next year. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, is facing a tough re-election campaign next year, and handling a highly controversial climate-change bill in her panel may risk alienating voters.
Ian Talley, The Wall Street Journal, 11 November 2009

Isn’t it great how the typical politician’s most deeply held beliefs go right out the window when they might hinder their chances for re-election?

But even though there HAVE been some positive signs in the last few weeks, these events are in no way a guarantee that Obama won’t just ram these bills down our throats at the last moment using his supermajority in congress to pull it off.

There’s one more aspect of the “energy” issue that truly puzzles me. For years our government has been restricting our access to our own oil reserves based on environmental concerns, and by arguing that we don’t have enough reserves to satisfy our energy needs for very long. I’m pretty sure however, that the argument that our oil reserves are insufficient to satisfy our long term energy needs is completely false. According to EIA (the U.S. Energy Information Administration) figures, (in billions of barrels) we have only 21BBL of oil reserves, which account for only 1.7% of the world’s known reserves of 1,232BBL. (USA 21, or 1.7%, of the world’s total of 1,232, with the Middle East having 745 or roughly 60%). Since it’s hard for me to believe anything the government says these days. I tend to believe the other reports that I’ve read that claim that the EIA statistics on oil reserves are pure hogwash.

According to a recent article from Investor’s Business Daily, which in my humble opinion is a far more credible source of information than the EIA, the USA actually has 1,320BBL, which account for 29% of the world’s known reserves of 4,450BBL. (USA 1,320, or 29%, of the world’s total of 4,450, with the Middle East having 1,330 also roughly 29%

So what does all this mean? Since I tend to be rather suspicious about the true intentions of the current administration, (and the last 16 years of Clinton and Bush as well,) I’ll be waiting to hear what NewsReal’s readers think. But I’d be very surprised if the consensus here, doesn’t agree with me that getting rid of the vast majority of our politicians, and the many useless bureaucracies that they’ve created, would make us far better off than we are today.

As for lies that have been perpetrated on America (and indeed the entire world) about our environment and climate change, by liars like Al Gore, the IPCC, and the extremists in the environmental community, all I can say is that like many other lies that the American people have fallen for in the last 50 years or so, we were warned about this one as well, and we totally ignored what we were told.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
 Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
 Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell address, 17 January 1961

I’d like to once again express my gratitude to SPPI and to Lord Monckton, for their gracious support and ALL that I’ve learned from them, and I’d also like to thank Amanda Wenger, for creating the lovely “CO2 Flower” artwork, that David and I selected to be the “logo” for this series.

Be Sociable, Share!
6 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry