Global Warming

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" shouted Chicken Little as he scurried about the barnyard to deliver the news of impending doom to his unsuspecting, furry comrades. What Chicken Little deemed to be an earth-shattering disaster, turned out to be nothing more than an acorn bouncing off the top of his head. It is amazing how natural phenomena can be blown out of proportion so easily. This same tendency is the hallmark of environmentalists throughout the world. Many, if not most, of the environmentalists who buy into the "sky is falling" media hype and fallacies are unaware of the sinister deception taking place among the globalist hierarchy. This cover-up serves an explicit purpose, which Discerning the Times consistently unveils.

A New York Times story carried by NewsMax on Monday, August 21, reported that for the first time in 50 million years the North Pole is no longer covered by ice. This bold statement should immediately lead astute readers to question "What data collecting methods were in use 50 million years ago? Who, exactly, was researching the issue?" and "Where can we view the records?" According to the Times, recent visitors to the North Pole report that the ice cap at the pole has turned into an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide, and that it provides evidence that global warming is real and is affecting the climate to the extent of melting polar ice, a theory that the majority of the world’s climatologists dispute. That same day, a Times Newspapers Limited article quoted a leading British Arctic scientist, Dr. Peter Wadhams, as saying that the emergence of ice-free areas was nothing new and that it had been happening for thousands of years. "Claims that the North Pole is now ice-free for the first time in 50 million years is complete rubbish, absolute nonsense..."

And he was right, as the truth came out in NewsMax on Friday, September 1. The New York Times published a correction saying the paper had "misstated" the normal conditions of ice at the pole. It admitted that open water has probably occurred there before because a tenth of the Arctic Ocean is typically free of ice in the summer. And it had to admit that any lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily a result of "global warming." Unfortunately, the original story spread like wildfire, but the truth was not expected to get nearly the same coverage. This is the modus operandi in environmental circles.

NASA delivered the next environmental catastrophe news flash via MSNBC on Tuesday, September 12 in the form of the "largest ozone hole ever on record." Dr. Paul A. Newman of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland warned "we’re perhaps beginning to see some evidence of climate change in the stratosphere," although no firm evidence is available, he added. As reported in the August 15 edition of Discerning the Times NewsBytes, NASA had previously backed off from the popular theory that CO2 was the main factor behind global warming. Dr James Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, admitted in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that warming over the past century was not mostly driven by carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, but by other gases, such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons, and that it should be "more practical to slow global warming than is sometimes assumed".

Conventional thinking among environmental leadership is that CO2 is the main villain, and that the way to reduce global warming is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, which produce most CO2. The 1997 Kyoto protocol, for example, is based almost entirely on reductions of CO2 and calls for the US to reduce CO2 emissions to 93 percent of 1990 levels by 2012. This would require the US to reduce its projected 2010 energy requirements by an enormous 30 percent of current levels! Such a reduction would cripple the US economy so much that the US Senate has refused to consider the treaty, even though President Clinton has signed it.

Alan Keyes, stated on Monday, September 25 in WorldNetDaily, makes this observation: "We have become propagandized into thinking that the very use of energy is suspect. Such suspicion is, along with abortion, perhaps the clearest manifestation of the socialist death wish.... The Kyoto reductions of carbon dioxide emissions would require the fundamental disruption of the global project of improving the material conditions of human existence.... Why would any sane person consider paying this cost in the absence of absolutely compelling evidence that the alternative is global calamity on a huge scale?"

Yet, global warming propagandizing by the Clinton Administration remains fierce. On September 15, NewsMax said that a government report authorized by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 was under attack. The study, which claims that global warming fears are well-founded, warns that U.S. taxpayers should be prepared to shell out big money to support the recommendations of the so-called Kyoto treaty on climate change. (Just the study itself may have a price tag of $15 billion or more without implementing the changes!) But critics are considering legal counteraction, charging that the report is "unlawful," and that the study is badly flawed. Christopher Horner, counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says even a reviewer for the federal Environmental Protection Agency has said that "many statements in the (report’s) Overview Document have a rather alarmist tone and do not reflect the scientific literature and the historical record, or the output of extant models."

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama couldn’t agree more. Christy states that he "saw no attempt at scientific objectivity. This document is an evangelistic statement about the coming apocalypse, not a scientific statement." Many assertions in the report about global warming were not only unscientific, but were completely absurd, such as: "Crime rates will go up in the Northeast," "Post-traumatic stress disorder could increase in the Midwest," "Native American People will not know when to plant, hunt, gather and fish," and "Farmers will be hurt by increased crop productivity." This is a glaring insult to the I.Q. of the world. If environmental leaders think that mankind is naive enough to believe such ridiculous propaganda, no wonder they feel the need to rush in on white horses to rescue Mother Earth! The environmental mindset believes that what people really need to be saved from is... people.

But should humans really have to accept the blame for any presumed global warming, and its sidekick, ozone depletion? The answer is, emphatically, no. What many scientists realize, and environmentalists choose to ignore, is the fact that solar storms and other natural phenomena like El Niño have a significant effect on global warming. Studies show that solar activity over the past 300 years is directly related to the rise and fall of global temperatures. When periods of intense solar activity are averaged with periods of relative inactivity, global warming is not happening. If not for the very warm 1998, which was do to El Niño and solar flares, satellite data even shows that the earth is in a cooling trend.

Just like horror stories told over and over in the dark around the campfire at kids’ summer camps, the media and global elite continue to perpetuate these doomsday scenarios. But if there is more evidence to support the fact that global warming is not a reality, then what is all the hubbub about? Why spend untold billions of dollars to prevent something that is a figment of countless imaginations? The answer is simple. Countries like the United States of America are clearly too powerful, and the playing field must be leveled in order for the one world government to become a reality. Controlling the U.S. economy through environmental regulations, is but one part of an immense jigsaw puzzle that is designed to bring this once-sovereign country to its knees.

The sky is not falling. If the proposed Kyoto "cures" are legislated, however, then the characters in this fairy tale will not live happily ever after. V bm