Copenhagen and Global Government

COLUMNS

D'ya think?
Copenhagen and Global Government

Jim Bispo

write the author

November 29, 2009
The climate change well has been poisoned. It has been poisoned by the very people who have been peddling the so called "settled science" supporting their hypotheses. It is not clear if their e-mails were truly "hacked" or if some insider "got religion" and leaked the very damaging information that has been flooding the web and the media. The responses of the originators rationalizing the verbiage contained in a lot of the correspondence is enough to add even more incredulity. The responses add new and even more sinister meaning to the term disingenuous.

First they claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that increase is causing the earth's climate to change. The earth is warming. Their models prove it.

Actual measurements at one of the observatories in Hawaii actually confirm that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (assuming the numbers have not been "juiced"). At the same time, however, actual measurements of the earth's temperature show a gradual decline over the past several years (enough to indicate a trend). So what happened?? Could the model possibly be wrong?? Not according to the zealots who have been pushing the global warming hypothesis and backing up their arguments with bogus data. The bogus arguments do keep the grant money flowing - but that wouldn't have anything to do with their efforts to perpetuate the myth, would it?? Well, maybe.... Or maybe a "One World" government??

And just to show you how really agile these so called scientists have been, they have us talking about the CO2 in the atmosphere as the culprit. Suddenly we are concerned with the CO2 itself, rather than the catastrophic warming of the earth rhetoric they have been telling us is caused by the CO2. There are those who believe that if these so called scientists had gone into advertising they would by now have taken over the entire industry. They are truly good at generating public opinion sympathetic to their cause.

A measure of their effectiveness can be seen in the remarks of our own HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. She is telling us that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not only make the planet healthier but would make people healthier also. It would save millions of lives (yes, millions). This great saving of lives is supported by yet more computer models. Yeah, right... Whose computer models?? Too bad there are so many folks who can still be convinced that running data through a computer model results in output that is unassailable.

Actually, we need to be really careful about reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Back in the olden days we were taught that trees absorb CO2 and give off O2. On the assumption that what we were taught was correct, and in the absence of any new computer models to the contrary, we need to be very careful. We need to be careful because if we get rid of too much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the trees won't have enough carbon dioxide to "inhale" and could, as a result, perish. If the trees perish, the oxygen that they "exhale" will be lost and will have to be replaced so we will have something to inhale - and how do we do that?? Maybe the real solution is for someone to figure out how to break water into its constituent parts. Then we can release the oxygen into the atmosphere for us to breathe and can use the hydrogen to power our "fuel cell" vehicles (except that the Prez has drastically cut funding for "fuel cell" research - part of his "alternate energy is good - as long as it is wind or solar based" program of energy independence).

In the meantime, we must look with a jaundiced eye at the proposals to solve the global warming problem that cannot be proven to exist - absent "juiced numbers". Likewise, we must look with a jaundiced eye at proposals to ameliorate the things that the same fallacious models tell us are causing the global warming problem - like CO2.

And we absolutely cannot surrender our national sovereignty to the UN or anybody else as the climate control "scientists" would have us do.

D'ya think??

Reader Feedback

Click to view 2 Reader Feedback.