Posted by
John Crutchfield on Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:05:34 AM
A growing number of scientists are at odds with their colleagues regarding the causes of climate change, but mouthpieces for the environmental movement continue to insist the debate over global warming is closed. They say: "Scientists have weighed in." and "There's no need for further debate." In other words, game over - you lose. Nonsense!
The very idea that we can cut off scientific debate flies in the face of true science. Science is advanced by the free and open exchange of ideas, limited only by our imagination, available methods and wisdom of the day. Scientific theories are constantly being confirmed or busted via the discovery of new evidence. Things we believe to be true today may not be so tomorrow.
For instance, after thirty years of CFC hysteria, scientists now believe that growing holes in the ozone are the result of a weakening of earth's magnetic field. Studies confirm the field is ten percent weaker than it was in the mid eighteen hundreds when they first started tracking it. These changes are caused by magma moving beneath earth's crust driven by the tremendous heat energy at the planet's core. This force is so powerful that earth's magnetic field has actually reversed polarity many times in our planet's history.
Most recently, core samples from polar ice millions of years old have given researchers reason to believe that rising levels of co2 may not cause global warming. They suggest the opposite may indeed be the case - that global warming causes an increase of co2. Is it possible that Al Gore had this backwards all along? You bet it is. And for a tidy little profit, I might add.
Another recent discovery of volcanic activity on the ocean floor deep beneath the Arctic ice has given birth to the idea that melting ice could be the result of hot magma warming the sea water. Environmentalists don't want to hear it, but this theory is quite plausible and shouldn't be discarded out of hand, especially since ice in the Antarctic has increased in mass. Too bad for polar bears, but penguins gain in this real estate exchange.
The truth is, variations in earth's temperature are caused by forces of nature with unimaginable, universal power. Among those are cosmic radiation, fluctuations in the sun's energy output, the tilt of earth's axis and inconsistent orbit around the sun, just to name a few. I, for one, can't wait to hear how environmentalists plan to fix these problems.
In 2007, there was a proposal in California that would give an energy czar the power to regulate home thermostats via remote control. The idea was to reduce the load during "emergency" periods. Without new power sources coming on line, increased regulation would be necessary as growth continues. Does this sound like the American way to you? I find the word "czar" offensive.
The measure was withdrawn in response to protests from angry consumers, but we'd be naive to think big brother could resist similar regulatory methods in our future. After all, government never met a problem it couldn't make worse.
Now, Great Britain has begun to consider issuing carbon credits to its citizens that would limit the amount of energy one could consume over the course of a year. Here's a tip for venture capitalists. Invest in bicycle related industries. This absurd regulatory approach is just one small wave in the rising tide of eco-socialist schemes being prepared for the purpose of washing away the American way of life.
The global warming crowd is pushing hard to defeat America. They've had a thirty year head start and now think their goal is in sight. They sound like the high pressure salesman who uses every dirty trick at his disposal in coercing us to sign on before we can figure out what this unholy alliance will really cost. This is a recipie for buyers remorse if ever there was one.
There are far too many questions and doubts about the claims of global warming alarmists to grant climate cops power to dictate US energy policy. Let the debate continue. To do otherwise virtually guarantees an erroneous conclusion unfavorable to this nation and that is absolutely unacceptable.
Ending the debate makes as much sense as stopping the Super Bowl in the middle of a crucial play and declaring a winner based on which team's cheerleaders are making the most noise at the time.