Cooling. No wait, warming. No wait, Climate Change. That's it!

Whenever I find myself subjected to listening to an "environmentalist" I frequently find my mind drifting to a memory of a cartoon. You know the one I'm talking about I'm sure. It's typically got a man standing on a street corner dressed in a white gown with a long beard holding a sign that says "The End of the World is Nigh!". Why would I compare them to this cartoon? For the simple reason that I think that "environmentalists" are the modern day equivalent to the doomsayers of the past. They are akin to the priests during the middle ages that would insist the plague that had beset a community was a sign of God's judgment for their wickedness. The community would drop to their knees and pray to God asking for his forgiveness. They would promise to erect new churches to worship in, promise to change their ways, and of course root out the Devil from their community. Meanwhile, the people who could have actually helped prevent the spread of the plague, people of science, are either run out of town, tortured till the "confess" their allegiance with the Devil, or they join the mob hoping to blend in and survive the madness. That is what is happening today. Except that today the priests have been replaced with "Environmentalist", "Climatologists" and their acolytes. They claim to have science on their side yet refuse to open their science up to debate. This "science" then becomes more like a organized religion than actual science.

The science of climatology is not science fact. There are plenty of theories and very little fact. This is because, as is the case many times, politicians have picked up theories and tried to make use of them to get elected. In doing this, most times, complicated science gets boiled down to 2 sentence sound bites that are easily digested by the masses. When there is an up swing in hurricane activity, or a heat wave, or some other natural disaster politicians take advantage of others suffering by making vague and sometimes false references to one platform or another that they've been championing for decades. Of course, when we see these sudden changes in our environment we immediately see logic in what the politician is claiming. We hear things like the hottest day on record, or worst drought in decades, or worst flooding in 100 years and we accept it as fact. Which it might be. So we think the politician was correct about the stand he/she took for the last 10 years about Global Cooling/Warming or Climate Change with these few examples of natural disaster. Then we listen more intently to them and when they know we are FINALLY paying attention they tell us how to "fix" the problem we've made for ourselves. Does this sound familiar? Let's put it in another way.......

Al Gore says, man made pollution will result in incredibly destructive natural disasters and climate change. No one listens and everyone goes about their business "sinning" in the eyes of Gore. Then a natural disaster happens. Everyone is shocked by the damage that Mother Nature can bring to us. We all drop to our knees and plead (pray) to the Great Gore to lead us from the temptations of the Great Devil Oil. We promise to change our dependent ways and erect huge solar farms in honor of the Great Gore. Woe be to all those that oppose the ideals of the Great Gore!

OK, OK....maybe that's a little tongue in cheek but it's not FAR from the truth. Today we are making decisions about the future without having science to back it up. The hypocrisy of some of these decisions would be great material for a Monty Python skit if they were still doing comedy. Take for example the bill the GW Bush signed that was pushed through Congress and hailed as a great step for the environmental cause. The Energy Bill that was signed by GW back in December 2007. The part of that bill I'm referring to basically bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs. Well it "phases" them out over time by requiring light bulb efficiency standards. This is GREAT, right? I mean in the future everyone will be using Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL). Those are the neat, little fluorescent light bulbs that are suppose to significantly reduce our electric bills if you use them. Wow, are we green now! Think of how much energy our country will save when everyone is obliged to buy CFL's! OK so now lets talk reality. You know how the eco-friendly crowd is always crying foul about big business preventing real change.....well it was big business that wrote this bill. The brag about it. I never heard the likes of Al Gore or any other eco-friendly mouth piece speak up about this. I get it....if the business is doing something eco-friendly it's great! Even when they are only pretending to be eco-friendly and are really just using their influence to make our elected officials pass laws that make them money. WHAT!? Think about it like this. Lets say GE makes an incandescent bulb that costs them $0.50. They put, I don't know, 10% on the cost for their profit and sell the bulbs for $0.55. So GE is making $0.05 per bulb. GE, Philips and other electronics companies lobbied for the laws to phase out the incandescent bulbs because the bulbs cost them more to make thus increasing their profit margin. SOOOO....GE makes a CFL and it costs them lets say $4.00 they put 10% on the cost and sell the CFL for $4.40. So now GE is making $0.40 per bulb instead of $0.05. Now consider this, GLOBALLY right here and now there are only about 3 manufacturers that can make bulbs that match the efficiency standards now required by law. Eventually, you won't have an alternative to buy incandescent bulbs and you'll only have 3 company's to pick from. What do you think will happen to the prices of CFL's then? Now think about how much energy is going to be saved thus reducing the pollution. Well, these new CFL's will not be manufactured in the USA like most incandescent bulbs are. They will be produced in China. We all know how environmentally friendly China is. So now we have a situation in which our light bulbs which are suppose to help clean up the environment are being manufactured in a horribly polluted and inefficient country. Then on top of that how much additional pollution and energy will be needed just to ship them to the USA? What about the jobs that are going to be lost in the USA? I have no idea if it's a lot of jobs but I know that some people are employed to make incandescent light bulbs in the USA today. Those factories will have to be shut down. What about the mercury in the CFL's? The traditional incandescent bulbs could be simply thrown away if they broke. Not CFL's. If they break the mercury they have inside them could spill out. Yes it's very little, about 4-5mg, but the EPA has special instructions on how to clean up a broken CFL....click here and read them for a good laugh. Aren't they ridiculous!? All that if you break a light bulb!? Really!? Well if you value your health the answer is YES. Plus, you can't just throw them in the trash. They are classified as hazardous waste. This is the kind of "science" that environmentalist brandish. They don't want to debate the logic of it.

Environmentalist have changed their tale more times than you can count. The Catholics use to excommunicate people for saying the Earth was not at the center of the solar system. Environmentalist do similar deeds. They don't want to debate their "science fact". In fact, if you question them you could loose your job, receive threats against your life. There are a large number of scientists that are reasonably sceptical of the "science" behind man made climate change. No one debates that the climate changes but the wacko's and politicians would have you believe that it's predominately man made. Which is truly bizarre when you consider all the factors that go into just one single days worth of global weather. All the CO2 we've humans have put into the air over the last 150ish years doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to a volcanic eruption. Consider the Maunder Minimum which ushered in the the Little Ice Age that spanned 400 years. We are less than a flea on a dogs butt when you consider the impact the sun has on our climate. When investigating even further, it may turn out, that we aren't even a single celled organism when considering the impact the Universe has on our climate. I know that might seem like science fiction, admittedly it is, but shouldn't it be open for debate?

Lastly, let's consider that there is BIG money in environmentalism. Thousands of jobs are dedicated to convincing us that the environmentalists have it right. They'd like you to hate the Big Oil Demons and their Big Profits while ignoring the Big Profits they are making off your fear of man made global warming. How much money does Al Gore get to go "speak" at climate change conferences? They've even gone as far as faking their data to fool you into believing their lies. Getting back to the title of this post though, I'd like to remind everyone that the same people that are fear mongering are the same people in the 70's that claimed the Earth was cooling, in the 80's that claimed the Earth was warming up, and now when they've been proven wrong twice choose to call it Climate Change. I'm not saying that there isn't global cooling or warming or "change". I'm saying that it shouldn't become science fact just because there is some sort of loose consensus. That's not really any different than the Pope and the Cardinals coming to a consensus about their faith. In the case of the Pope, that's OK, because it's a faith and people don't need facts to have faith. In the case of science it's not OK to make decisions about our future on scientific consensus. If it can be proven then and only then should it be called scientific fact. Which we can then apply in intelligent, logical applications. Remember folks, no matter what you're told by the wacko's, there is no such thing as "emission's free". I'm not in favor of continuing as we have been. I like the idea of working towards cleaner energy. I like the idea of reducing emissions and pollution. Let's please do it with a little logic and some thought and absolutely with science fact to back up our decisions. One last example I leave you all with to think on. If we make it more and more difficult to produce products in the USA, and more and more difficult to produce energy (Carbon Tax, Emission Standards), we will out source the jobs, production, and energy creation to foreign lands. We will be trading one dependence (Oil) for another and in the meantime actually increase pollution as it's likely those foreign manufacturers won't have to live up to the same standards as our local ones will. Does this seem like a logical path to follow to REDUCE man made global warming?