Letter to Editor - Evening Sun - Global Warming Propaganda

Now, let me see if I got this right, according to Sunday's front page article on global warming:
1.  The debate is over. You may recite the “facts,” you may declare your allegiance to the “facts”, but you must not debate the “facts.”
2.  If it weren't for an evil capitalist conspiracy, we'd all be living in a Green Utopia right now with windmills, solar panels, and bio-fuels supplying all of our energy needs.
3.  If we don't do what the United Nations tells us to do, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.
4.  Denialists like me don't care about the environment...and we're angry, mentally defective, racists. Like the carbon dioxide that we exhale, we are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. Some of us even believe in God! (full-text version of article)
CO2 is a trace gas. The change in the amount of CO2 that Global Warmers allege is responsible for our impending demise, according to Sunday's article, involves 0.0089%, or less than 1% of 1% of our atmosphere.
All of the gases in our atmosphere have the capacity to absorb infrared radiation to one degree or another. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis hinges on the assertion that CO2 has a vastly greater capacity in this regard than do any of the other atmospheric gases.
I have looked at charts on specific heat capacities and discussions of infrared absorption rates till my eyes have glazed over and the only place where I found anything to suggest such magical properties for CO2 was in the United Nations and EPA sponsored charts, charts that use unique and indecipherable units of comparison and which seem to have been derived from impossibly complicated global climate models. Forgive me if I question man's ability to construct an accurate global climate model when we can't even predict the weather accurately from one day to the next!
They are right on one thing though: Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't just a theory. No, it's a dangerous agenda that will undermine U.S. sovereignty, further cripple our economy, suppress free speech and make Al Gore very rich.
Do we really want the U.N making and enforcing laws within our borders? The implications of Anthropogenic Global Warming represent a much more serious threat to our future than global warming itself does.

Local Newspaper's front page article on Global Warming

(Link to Article) The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?  

Global warming advocates do not merely purport that the globe is warming. No, you cannot be considered truly compliant with the party-line unless you also believe that:

1) Rule #1 of Fight Club is...: You are not to debate, much less consider arguments against, the global warming theory.

2) It is mankind's or more specifically, greedy western capitalist oil companies', fault.

3) That an increase in CO2, a trace gas that comprises approximately 0.00369% of the total atmosphere, is the root of the problem.

4) That, if it weren't for a capitalist conspiracy among the oil companies, we'd all be living in a sparkling clean world with windmills, solar panels, and other "Green" technology keeping us warm, getting us to work, fueling our manufacturing, and lighting our way.

5) That if we don't do something drastic right now, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.



6) That we must subjugate the sovereignty of the United States to the all-knowing and all-powerful United Nations and a myriad of one-sided restrictive international treaties. In other words, one world government baby!

7) People who don't believe in "anthropogenic" global warming (denialists) don't care about the environment...and they're mean, stupid, smelly, racists, etc. In fact, like the carbon dioxide that they exhale, they are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. A lot of them even believe in God!

I seem to recall a story in the news a year or two back, a story that disappeared quickly but that I found quite interesting, about some emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and some scientists at prominent academic institutions in the U.S.. There were multiple emails openly discussing "the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims" and there were multiple emails that discussed how to discredit dissenting scientists, publications, and institutions. These emails are now part of the public record. Since most of the scientists involved in the Global Warming "debate" depend on these same institutions and publications for their careers, reputations, advancement, funding, etc., I do not find it very compelling that there would be an "overwhelming consensus" among that group of individuals. I mean, just try to get a job as a climate scientist while openly challenging any tenet of the anthropologic global warming theory.



Ummm, without CO2, plant life as we know it would die off and atmospheric oxygen levels, not to mention food supplies, would dwindle to levels incompatible with human life! Your "consensus" maintains that CO2 is a deadly pollutant that threatens man's survival. That's seems like a funny way to talk about a gas that is so integral to our survival and produced naturally by our very existence.

The increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times, the more precise alleged culprit, represents 0.00089% of our atmosphere, and that's assuming pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels were measured accurately. That CO2 must be some powerful stuff!

Everybody loves to bash the oil industry as the root of all evil. Well, you know what, I kind of like being able to drive to the store and take trips to far away places and, while I may not actually enjoy driving to work, it sure beats walking to work. Deforestation was a much bigger problem in this country during the early part of this century than it is now. It wasn't until the advent of coal, oil, gas, and electric heat that we were able to begin re-foresting this great country of ours. And, speaking of deforestation, just think how many trees have been saved, not just by heating fuel, but by the myriad of petroleum based products that have replaced tree based products. And, how many lives have been saved, that's right saved, by medical products that would not have been possible without petroleum?"

Look, I'm all for doing everything that we reasonably can to protect the environment. Key word is "reasonably". I do not think it is reasonable to cripple our manufacturing sector or to impose punitive taxes on energy producers. Taxes, by the way, that will be passed along to consumers in the form of skyrocketing energy bills and fuel costs and that will show up in the cost of everything from tires to food.

Here's an idea. If you want to punish somebody with higher taxes, how about imposing import tariffs on countries that don't seem to be doing what they can to keep our planet clean? (China comes to mind) Oh, but that wouldn't go over very well at the United Nations, now would it?

The anthropologic global warming theory is designed to make us panic. It is nothing more than another artificial crisis designed to undermine the United States' position of world dominance, which, like driving to the store and taking trips to far away places, I kind of like.