An inconvenient nightmare

MSNBC is reporting today that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying ocean acidity in an effort to determine if the "greenhouse gas" CO2 should be regulated.

That should make Al Gore happy, considering his recently founded firm (2004), Generation Investment Management LLP, is already making hundreds of millions of dollars capatalizing on the man-made global warming hysteria, along with business partner and former head of Goldman Sachs David Blood.

Blood and Gore - you just can't make this stuff up.

It has also been widely reported that Barack Obama was instrumental in setting up and acquiring funding for the Chicago Climate Exchange, "North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide", while working in Chicago for a private charity, the Joyce Foundation.

On the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange also sits one Maurice Strong, a long time beneficiary of climate change hysteria. As head of the Earth Day Summit in Brazil in 1992, Strong had this to say: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

But let's set aside the political and financial connections and take a look at what carbon dioxide - the main focus of this scam - really is and what it does.

Carbon Dioxide, first and foremost, is a gas that all life on this planet relies on and needs. Plants take in carbon dioxide and through a process called photosynthesis, strips away the carbon molecule (carbon-based life form) and releases oxygen, which we mammals need to breathe.

The oceans, which cover almost three quarters of our planet, are the largest contributors of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the oceans warm, CO2 is released, contrary to the findings in the MSNBC article, which states that the oceans absorb CO2. If that were indeed the case, wouldn't rising oceans absorb more CO2?

This has been proven through the study of ice core samples taken in Antartica, which shows that increases in CO2 are a result of a rise in temperature, not a contributor to it.

In this National Geographic report, we find that "The recent EPICA core goes back seven glacial cycles and shows that the length of our current warm period may not be that unusual,".
I don't seem to remember Neanderthals driving Escalades, do you?

We also have Japan's leading climate scientist thoroughly debunking the UN's IPCC theories. From his summary: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an "unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

We also have this report by World Net Daily detailing 650 scientists, some former members of the UN's IPCC, addressing the US Congress concerning their positions on man-made global warming.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

-This also seems to be proven in the ice core samples.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Recently I have read reports that the US government has been engaged in aerosol spraying for over a decade in an effort to combat global warming by creating artificial cloud cover.

Last Friday, actually, started out as a beautiful spring day here in upstate New York. As I was looking forward to a short day of work and getting my motorcycle out for the first time this year, one gaze up at the crisscrossing "chemtrails" told me that we were in for a cloudy afternoon. I wasn't disappointed, as the afternoon arrived and the thin wisps of spray spread across the sky.
There's a few problems I have with this geo-engineering hypothesis. The first is one that anyone living in a four season climate can relate to - clouds trap heat. Our brilliant geo-engineers think that blocking out the sun with cloud cover will cool the earth's surface.

Secondly, if CO2, and not the sun, is responsible for global warming, then why the need to block the sun? I have also seen wild suggestions that we put millions of mirrors in space to reflect the sun's rays back into space.

Thirdly, plants require direct sunlight to grow, and humans need direst sunlight to produce vitamin D. Blocking out the sun to save the planet from the natural, cyclical global warming means sicker, smaller plants and humans with vitamin D deficiencies. How about that for a trade-off?

It has also been found that during the last significant warming trend all life on the planet flourished, even polar bears.

I have also seen reports that environmentalists, the same people that used to chain themselves to trees in order to save them from the logger's axe, are now seriously considering cutting more trees to stop forest fires. Surely that will stop the warming.

Perhaps they should throw themselves into volcanoes in an attempt to plug those up too. Oh wait, they're actually talking about creating artificial volcanoes too.

Let me end by stating that I am all for responsible and smart environmentalism. I personally do everything I can do in terms of recycling and energy conservation, as most reasonable people do.
Just the other night my wife was making a cake and caught me fishing the empty cardboard box out of the garbage to be put in the recycle bin. "You've turned into your father" she said, laughing. I guess the old man did teach me a thing or two, but don't tell him.

There are plenty of things we can do to combat pollution of the oceans and the air that don't require massive involvement of government and further taxation of the People, especially considering the fact that, contrary to what the media is paid to say, man-made global warming has not been scientifically proven.

It remains a theory, and not a very believable one at this point.

The anthropogenic global warming hysteria has taken center stage and has displaced meaningful and achievable goals, and has put Wall Street and government at the helm of what appears to be just another money-making power grab.