Global Warming

This is a response to an ordinary citizen who inquired of my father after he loudly and vehemently denounced a video shown in his work-place.

Thanks, [redacted], for the privilege to respond to your inquiry of me through my daughter, Traci.

The vehemence of my negative reaction to the “Tipping Point” video was not founded merely in the global warming issue. The video and the advancement of a man-made global warming control agenda, more generally, are two examples of contributors to a much more immediate danger. That danger is the extinguishing of the American experiment in freedom of which we and those that come after us – if they are lucky – are part.

Because you took the time to view my namesake website, I’m pointing you to some of my existing writings under the “True Stories” tab of the site to provide some context. Please see on that page the writings “A Speech Not Given” (8/20/2009) and “DEEPER THOUGHTS: Moving from Democracy to Dictatorship” (7/6/2009).

As to your question about “…[my] position on [man-made] global warming…” I offer the following summary:

The key authorities modeling the earth’s temperature were shown to be purposefully misrepresenting data to cause it to fit preconceived notions that the global temperatures should have an upward trend while over the past decade the temperatures were actually declining. Further, this misrepresentation had to discard the medieval warming period indicators. Otherwise, the man-made aspect of the argument tends to be shown false on its face.
For awhile, not sure if it still is evident or not, it was noted the ice caps on Mars were receding. Man-made warming could not be causation for that.
The advocates of the man-made global warming hypothesis have taken to talking about “climate change”. This is true even in the subject video. My view is this change in terminology is because they recognize the fallacy of their argument is evident, but they do not wish to give up their power and grant money. By the way, if the term “Newspeak” means nothing to you, you should read George Orwell’s book, “1984”.
Having personally read the pertinent sections of the Kyoto accord and other such proposals, my understanding is that “cap and trade” arrangements are wealth redistribution mechanisms. That is; they are Marxist at their core and global in scope. My view is that Marxism is antithetical to the American form of self government which, until now, has produced the most free and prosperous people ever to inhabit the planet. Contrarily, Marxism, in practice, is demonstrated to lead to poor “serfs” rather than to well off, free people.

As to the “Tipping Point” video itself: It seems to me to be propaganda aimed, I think, at brainwashing children. It is an attempt to scare populations so that they will cede rights to make personal choices (freedom!) to authorities. Authorities get rich, without merit, on that kind of stuff. For example, Al Gore was (is?) a major stock holder in the carbon emission trading market that was supposed to be established in support of “cap and trade” legislation. (If you have not read George Orwell’s booklet, “Animal Farm”, I recommend you read it – “Some pigs are more equal than others”, I believe is the operative phrase in this respect.) Science perverted to politics, and economic interests supporting it, are very dangerous. It has happened in the past. The least of one’s problems in that situation can be people getting rich without merit. I mention eugenics in practice as one example of worse things.

Eventually, we are told, and I find the evidence credible, the sun will nova and destroy the earth. Ultimate global warming! No amount of carbon emission control will have any effect on that. My view, therefore, is: The likelihood is sun emitted energy changes have very(!) much more to do with the earth’s temperature than whatever geologically and cosmologically puny humanity is doing. In my thinking, abdicating any freedom to government controllers for the purpose of preventing non-evident, not man-made, global warming through Marxist wealth redistribution is very dangerous folly.

There may be a subtle point relevant to your own query’s phraseology. Maybe not, but it does provide a platform for me to mention some additional points that you may judge worthy, or not. Anyone’s “position”, including my own, is of no relevance in science. It is “positioning” - and particularly politically correct positioning, on many subjects that is contributing to the demise of the country. If we are to allow government to destroy economies and freedom due to “necessarily” implementing perceived preventive measures, as seems to me to be advocated by man-made global warming hypothesis adherents, what matters are facts pertinent to the circumstances, not positions. To me, it is unfortunate that many in the political class seem not to understand this basic premise.