Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Eco-Cult and higher taxes

Climate Change baloney and Marxist illogic

by StFerdIII

Kyoto and the Global warming Marxist accord is of course thankfully dead. No serious politician or eco-cult fanatic expects any aspect of Kyoto to become reality. Such is the deadening hypocrisy of political ‘green-ism’; promise the utopian world of back to nature fantasy, but don’t bother to do anything to realize the vision. The eco-cult is a pernicious paganism in alliance with a not-so-merry-Marxism. This alliance aims to not only destroy the modern world but erect a pre-modern mentality and society replete with a feudal caste system in which Al Gore and the Sierra Club rule and the besotted serfs till the land under wise watchful technocratic guidance. The Global warming or now ‘Climate Change’ cult is just another variant of big socialism and statism. Make up lies, deceive and fear monger – so that the UN, Al Gore and the three toed sloth can rule.

Global Warming and ‘Climate Change’ is one of the greatest marketing and fraud campaigns in history - and one that will be paid for by tax payers. Advocates of climate change [C-C] want Marxist solutions to destroy the modern world and ‘save humanity’. Kyoto as an example was a monstrosity of redistribution. In 2000 the Canadian Federal Government forecasted that Canadians would pay $4000 more per person, per year, in taxes and fees by 2008 when Kyoto was supposed to begin. It was estimated that richer, cleaner countries such as Canada and the US would transfer to Russia, Asia and other poorer, dirtier areas of the globe, about USD$20-25 Billion per annum. Even today with the earth cooling noticeably since 1998 the eco-cult has change the wail from global warming to climate change. Any freaky weather pattern is now caused apparently by the release of water vapor, CO2 and methane gas. None of these 3 substances, as released by humans, has the slightest impact on the climate.

The UN or Useless Nations Organisation [through its group called the IPCC- International Panel on Climate Change], believes that CO2 and Methane emissions will cause the earth to warm or to at least enact widespread climate catastrophe. No science supports this political claim. According to Al Gore and the Useless Nations an increase in temperature will have catastrophic environmental impacts; such as melting ice caps, rising sea levels, ecological devastation and species reduction. The IPCC predicts that without a massive reduction of about 30 % of CO2 and Methane from human induced non-renewal energy burning sources, the earth’s temperature will increase by 1-5 Degrees Celcius by 2100. The culprits are of course those obnoxious, parasitical, racist rich countries who burn non-renewal fossil fuels. Asians, Russians, Africans and Latin Americans are exempt from censure.

In philosophical terms Kyoto is viewed chiefly as a means to punish the polluting northern part of the world and transfer money to the developing and apparently less environmentally destructive or at least, less immoral, Third World. Such a transfer reflects the guilt that developed countries should naturally feel as their wealthy societies destroy non renewable energy sources. Kyoto rightly forces these rich and wasteful nations to invest in cheaper hydrogen, wind, solar and renewable energies. Kyoto advocates believe that by implementing such changes and by reducing further global warming Kyoto will have a profound impact on national systems and state development – all for the better.

The philosophy is badly flawed and utopian. But does any of it make scientific sense ? Not really. The science behind Kyoto is so bad that 18.000 Climatologists and Scientists have signed a petition urging its rejection. Politicians tell you that the scientific community is united on global warming. It isn’t. Only 800 environmental activists and government scientists support Kyoto. The scientists who oppose Kyoto make the following points that the United Nations has never bothered to refute: [See Bjorn Lomberg’s ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ or Ezra Levant’s ‘Fight Kyoto’]

1.IPCC uses computer models to drive out forecasts. Their models do not include all the variables associated with the climate. About 1 million variables make up the climate. Technically it is impossible to model the interactions of 1 million variables. As such ‘garbage in’ and ‘garbage out’.

2.IPCC models are based on tree ring data from North America for the past 1000 years. There are many problems with this. First the data is land based and geographically limited. Most of the earth is left out. Second tree ring data is not supported by atmospheric data readings. Third, the sample size and number of years is too small to make general statements about temperature swings.

3.The earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period 900-1400 AD. This warm spell ended around 1350-1400 and the temperature decreased precipitating the ‘Little Ice Age’ [1400-1900]. IPCC models can’t explain these temperature swings.

4.Data seems to indicate that there are regular occurrences like the little ice age and the medieval warm period in a rough 1500 year cycle. This cycle has repeated itself endlessly over the past 140.000 years.

5.Most of any temperature increase in the 20th century apparently occurred in two phases, during 1910-1945 and from 1975-2000. The first period is impossible to align with greenhouse emissions. The second phase can be aligned with emissions but 25 years does not constitute a meaningful long term trend, especially when between 1945-1975 there were rising emissions but no corresponding increase in temperature.

6.Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal only a very small temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07C per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.

7.IPCC models incredibly do not include Solar Radiation effects or Cloud Cover. Solar Radiation is the most important variable in determining temperature.

8.Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

9.At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

10.Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.

11.Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness.

12.Publications in journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago. There is little correlation therefore between warmth and CO2 levels.

13.Furthermore the IPCC and UN have not bothered to prove that CO2 emissions are in fact dangerous and constitute a threat to the environment through field work. Nature Magazine in 2001 published a report citing that CO2 levels have often been as high as 5 times what they are today. In a North Carolina experiment 50 % more CO2 was pumped into in a forested area which resulted in faster growth, stronger trees and cones and no damage whatsoever to the ecosystem.

14.During the 1970s the UN was warning us about Global Cooling in the same apocalyptic tones. In fact it said that we had until 1980 to fix the global cooling problem. How much faith should we have in an agency that was so wrong about global cooling ?

15.How does one explain that the winter of 2003 was the coldest on record for dozens of areas around the earth ?

16.Most importantly -- Ninety five percent of CO2 emissions come from natural sources and the earth releases 210,000 mega tonnes each year of CO2 gas. Only about 5 % of this comes from industrial and human activity.

Even if you wiped out the human race the effect on CO2 emissions would be only 5 % of the total released yearly. Why then worry about it ?

Climate Change and the C-C club is simply a political statement. It is Marxist and anti-capitalist. The basic idea is that capitalism - represented by the immoral United States - is a danger to our mother earth. The earth goddess cult is a cheap way to gain votes. By installing the earth goddess cult into political debate politicians are able to do a number of things. First, they can buy off the green, left wing and eco-cult vote. Second, they can raise taxes and hire more union members in the name of love, the future, our children's green space, saving the world, and other platitudes routinely employed to buy votes. Third, they can denigrate capitalism, growing economies and market dynamics by offering government as the only solution to solve an incurable 'market failure'. Lastly they can resurrect the sorry paganism of the noble savage, the stone age nirvana of the earth goddess cult, as they transfer monies from the rich immoral northern part of the world, to the corrupt, polluted and failing areas of Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. Apparently destroying your economy and ecology through socialist mismanagement as witnessed in Africa and Eastern Europe, needs to be rewarded.