The Farce of the Climate Scare

Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare that the administration recently forced through Congress, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill, recently renamed “The American Power Act”, as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the American Power Act will mean for all Americans. Well, almost all Americans. It appears that Al Gore and his closest friends are prepared through their investments, to turn millions into billions once this bill has passed into law.

But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.

I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This is nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.

If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.

Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.

U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.

Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people were then, and remain to be now. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."Kenneth Watt, ecologist.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”George Wald, Harvard Biologist.
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University.

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”Life Magazine, January 1970.

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”Martin Litton, Sierra Club director.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”Sen. Gaylord Nelson.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is nothing more than a concocted event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard; not suppressed. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?

Paul