The climate debate is raging in Copenhagen and as I suspected, is turning into a money issue between poorer and richer nations. After all, the UN promised that there would be a major shift of wealth from the suckers, I mean the western industrial nations to the parasites…oops…I mean developing nations. I am not disparaging the poor. They have an awful existence but one would have to be foolish to ignore that the impoverished people of those nations are the victims of massive government corruption within their own countries and not suffering because the west prefers I-Pods to drums and cars to ox carts.
EPA Chief Lisa Jackson is there to calm the nerves of Obama’s globalist friends in the UN by laying out her plan to negate Congressional authority and bypass the democratic process by unilaterally enacting sweeping regulations in the US to cap greenhouse gases through a dangerous loophole crafted into the clean air act. This, my friends, is what happens when you elect a radical to the Presidency. They appoint radical environmentalists to positions of power such as Carol Browner, and the radicals in turn, use our own laws against us to bring about their own twisted agenda based on bad science and egalitarian socialist principals.
Half of Obama’s appointees believe in a one world government responsible for controlling every facets of human existence and the other half have a world first, people last eco-fascist mentality. Both of these factions believe their ideology is too important to worry about the sovereignty of the United States and if we must cease to exist as a nation for the greater good of the world, then that is a small price to pay. Don’t believe me? Then why, when all evidence points to a massive, international and concerted effort to conceal the fallacies of the global warming theory, has the EPA decided to “go rogue” and continue these insanely damaging policies to cripple business in the US in the name of reducing greenhouse gasses?
Global warming proponents are disregarding the evidence contained in these e-mails stating that there is sufficient corroboration in the work of other climate scientists to validate the existence of man-made global warming. Really? Does it matter that the believers in global warming, as a body, have collaborated on their work and many use the same data sources; data that is proven to have been manipulated? Does it matter that dissenting views and research by serious scientists that contradict the theory of global warming have not only been locked out of the discussion but that any peer paper or organization that even print their work have been ostracized as well?
The religious leaders of the global warming camp have pointed to NASA and NOAA as collaborative proof of global warming, noting studies and reports that confirm their findings. Unfortunately for them, NASA has been brought under fire and the researcher that issued the report validating global warming has refused to release his data, even under the threat of a Freedom of Information law suit. We all know that Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia had sent e-mails warning colleagues to destroy damning communications and data before a Freedom of Information Act suit could be brought. The CRU recently announced that its climate data from 1960 to present has been “irretrievably lost” but denies that this has anything to do with Mr., Jones’s e-mails. Add to this that NOAA personnel have also actively sought to silence dissenting views and have recently been caught eliminating the input of live satellite data from their computer model to better show the rise in sea temperature.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. There is nothing in the explanation of the scientific method that would allow a researcher from distorting or deleting “observable, empirical and measurable evidence” because it contradicts their pre-conceived ideas about what should be happening. If the evidence does not correspond, then the theory is wrong….plain and simple; at least it should be.
There is far too much effort being exerted to force everyone into the acceptance of global warming, or climate change as it is now called, to be a matter of scientific rationale. Let’s face it, if the empirical evidence is there; if this is a solid scientific fact then why aren’t the climate change proponents opening the books and showing the world their proof? Instead all we have heard is “So what….a few e-mails do not negate the science.” Then where is the science?
In 1917, Albert Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to the universe and was stunned at what he found. According to his theories, the universe must be expanding but as a devout creationist, he believed that a universe created by God had to be static and eternal. The evidence was there and the mathematics were solid, but his faith in God prevented him from believing in his own work. It wasn’t until Edwin Hubble correctly interpreted the Doppler shift in 1929 that the expanding universe became part of our store of scientific knowledge. I believe in God, but I also believe that God would put all of the physical laws in place to sustain whatever he created; so I can exist quite comfortably with science and religion. Einstein could not believe that a created universe could be dynamic and expanding so he suppressed his own theory.
Similarly, climate change fanatics are so convinced that man is destructive to the planet that our industrial society must be harmful. The theory of global warming was written in part, because of recurrent and persistent droughts in certain areas of the world. Even though there was sufficient evidence of historically massive swings in earths climate that occur as part of the natural cycles of the sun’s output coupled with fluctuations in the earth’s orbital path, the seemingly religious fervor of environmental radicals refused to acknowledge anything that did not lay the blame squarely at man’s feet. Let’s not forget that these are the same people that warned of an impending ice age during the first “Earth Day” back in 1970. According to the same eco-nuts that are pushing global warming now, the earth was being thrust into an ice age because our industrial pollution was blocking the sun’s warming and nurturing rays, giving us only decades to avert disaster.
The last and most dangerous part of this equation is that there are always malevolent forces hiding in the shadows waiting to exploit man’s foolishness. The threat of global catastrophe has long been viewed by those that seek absolute political power as the one thing that would entice people to act without reason. We would deal with economic woes and even the threat of war but when the future of our children is brought into question, all bets are off. We will do anything for our children; even give up our wealth and sovereignty as long as we can guarantee their safety. This is well known to our enemies.
It wasn’t Russia that tried to crush us in the ‘60’s, it was communism. They tried to subvert our culture and for some, it worked; but the majority of America resisted because it threatened our children’s future. They tried to engage us in a war of economics but communism cannot out-produce capitalism because they have no profit motive. They threatened war and again, we resisted with a massive arms buildup to protect our children. Now they have the ultimate weapon, the threat of world annihilation at our own hands. They are hell bent on convincing us that we are killing our own children through our corrupt way of life, expecting that we will finally surrender and for the first time in history, they have a willing ally in the White House.
Do I believe that Obama is a willing part of this conspiracy? No, I think that like the bulk of his radical czars and other friends, he has been brainwashed only because Joe McCarthy was never able to finish his work of routing communists and Marxists out of our government and Universities. He is, in essence, the quintessential Manchurian Candidate. Scripted and schooled by the left, ready to strangle our nation and her people as soon as someone turns over the Queen of Hearts.
Paul
EPA Chief Lisa Jackson is there to calm the nerves of Obama’s globalist friends in the UN by laying out her plan to negate Congressional authority and bypass the democratic process by unilaterally enacting sweeping regulations in the US to cap greenhouse gases through a dangerous loophole crafted into the clean air act. This, my friends, is what happens when you elect a radical to the Presidency. They appoint radical environmentalists to positions of power such as Carol Browner, and the radicals in turn, use our own laws against us to bring about their own twisted agenda based on bad science and egalitarian socialist principals.
Half of Obama’s appointees believe in a one world government responsible for controlling every facets of human existence and the other half have a world first, people last eco-fascist mentality. Both of these factions believe their ideology is too important to worry about the sovereignty of the United States and if we must cease to exist as a nation for the greater good of the world, then that is a small price to pay. Don’t believe me? Then why, when all evidence points to a massive, international and concerted effort to conceal the fallacies of the global warming theory, has the EPA decided to “go rogue” and continue these insanely damaging policies to cripple business in the US in the name of reducing greenhouse gasses?
Global warming proponents are disregarding the evidence contained in these e-mails stating that there is sufficient corroboration in the work of other climate scientists to validate the existence of man-made global warming. Really? Does it matter that the believers in global warming, as a body, have collaborated on their work and many use the same data sources; data that is proven to have been manipulated? Does it matter that dissenting views and research by serious scientists that contradict the theory of global warming have not only been locked out of the discussion but that any peer paper or organization that even print their work have been ostracized as well?
The religious leaders of the global warming camp have pointed to NASA and NOAA as collaborative proof of global warming, noting studies and reports that confirm their findings. Unfortunately for them, NASA has been brought under fire and the researcher that issued the report validating global warming has refused to release his data, even under the threat of a Freedom of Information law suit. We all know that Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia had sent e-mails warning colleagues to destroy damning communications and data before a Freedom of Information Act suit could be brought. The CRU recently announced that its climate data from 1960 to present has been “irretrievably lost” but denies that this has anything to do with Mr., Jones’s e-mails. Add to this that NOAA personnel have also actively sought to silence dissenting views and have recently been caught eliminating the input of live satellite data from their computer model to better show the rise in sea temperature.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. There is nothing in the explanation of the scientific method that would allow a researcher from distorting or deleting “observable, empirical and measurable evidence” because it contradicts their pre-conceived ideas about what should be happening. If the evidence does not correspond, then the theory is wrong….plain and simple; at least it should be.
There is far too much effort being exerted to force everyone into the acceptance of global warming, or climate change as it is now called, to be a matter of scientific rationale. Let’s face it, if the empirical evidence is there; if this is a solid scientific fact then why aren’t the climate change proponents opening the books and showing the world their proof? Instead all we have heard is “So what….a few e-mails do not negate the science.” Then where is the science?
In 1917, Albert Einstein applied his general theory of relativity to the universe and was stunned at what he found. According to his theories, the universe must be expanding but as a devout creationist, he believed that a universe created by God had to be static and eternal. The evidence was there and the mathematics were solid, but his faith in God prevented him from believing in his own work. It wasn’t until Edwin Hubble correctly interpreted the Doppler shift in 1929 that the expanding universe became part of our store of scientific knowledge. I believe in God, but I also believe that God would put all of the physical laws in place to sustain whatever he created; so I can exist quite comfortably with science and religion. Einstein could not believe that a created universe could be dynamic and expanding so he suppressed his own theory.
Similarly, climate change fanatics are so convinced that man is destructive to the planet that our industrial society must be harmful. The theory of global warming was written in part, because of recurrent and persistent droughts in certain areas of the world. Even though there was sufficient evidence of historically massive swings in earths climate that occur as part of the natural cycles of the sun’s output coupled with fluctuations in the earth’s orbital path, the seemingly religious fervor of environmental radicals refused to acknowledge anything that did not lay the blame squarely at man’s feet. Let’s not forget that these are the same people that warned of an impending ice age during the first “Earth Day” back in 1970. According to the same eco-nuts that are pushing global warming now, the earth was being thrust into an ice age because our industrial pollution was blocking the sun’s warming and nurturing rays, giving us only decades to avert disaster.
The last and most dangerous part of this equation is that there are always malevolent forces hiding in the shadows waiting to exploit man’s foolishness. The threat of global catastrophe has long been viewed by those that seek absolute political power as the one thing that would entice people to act without reason. We would deal with economic woes and even the threat of war but when the future of our children is brought into question, all bets are off. We will do anything for our children; even give up our wealth and sovereignty as long as we can guarantee their safety. This is well known to our enemies.
It wasn’t Russia that tried to crush us in the ‘60’s, it was communism. They tried to subvert our culture and for some, it worked; but the majority of America resisted because it threatened our children’s future. They tried to engage us in a war of economics but communism cannot out-produce capitalism because they have no profit motive. They threatened war and again, we resisted with a massive arms buildup to protect our children. Now they have the ultimate weapon, the threat of world annihilation at our own hands. They are hell bent on convincing us that we are killing our own children through our corrupt way of life, expecting that we will finally surrender and for the first time in history, they have a willing ally in the White House.
Do I believe that Obama is a willing part of this conspiracy? No, I think that like the bulk of his radical czars and other friends, he has been brainwashed only because Joe McCarthy was never able to finish his work of routing communists and Marxists out of our government and Universities. He is, in essence, the quintessential Manchurian Candidate. Scripted and schooled by the left, ready to strangle our nation and her people as soon as someone turns over the Queen of Hearts.
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment