Environmental Myth
The theory of man caused global climate change is a fairly new idea. For many years it was believed that God created and maintained Earth to be used by man. The bogus idea that man through the burning of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm has been the mantra of many anti-American and anti-capitalistic groups for the past decade and a half.
My first memory involving global climate change was in the fourth grade. I was shocked to learn that the earth was in the beginning stages of another ice age. I was shocked and terrified as any ten year old would be. I could imagine having to fight wooly mammoths for space on the sidewalks as I walked to school. The thought that the earth might be warming apparently did not exist in our textbooks nor was it taught in class. I never really thought about climate change for several years as I was more concerned with pursuing members of the fairer sex and building and driving fast vehicles.
Apparently between 1980 and the middle part of the 1990?s the United States has caused the earth to reheat. I believe this is wrong and being used to deepen the coffers and environmental groups and the pocketbooks of their leaders. I heard Rush Limbaugh say once that ?Everything that happens in this world of any importance is directly related to money?. This was one of the most profound things I had ever heard. I believe this is exactly the reason for the expansion of Earth First, the Sierra Club and other radical preservation groups.
The global warming debate is highly technical and is difficult to understand for even the so-called experts. ?The global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process. Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes." (Baden)
Many experts believe that man made global warming is actually not occurring at all. Baden says ?First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend. Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940. Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet. (Baden)
There are many myths associated with global warming, not the least of these myths is the scientific models used to predict and interpolate data and results. ?The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.?
One of the most unusual findings by these scientists is how placing hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Robinson says ?Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There is now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases. (Robinson)? I agree with Robinson that it is considered borderline sacrilegious speech to the pagans and druids that make up the environmental movement to think that anything positive can come from humanity. It is basically hate speech to say that something positive has come from the industrial revolution however Robinson says ?What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons (Robinson).?
These myths are also perpetuated by our popular culture and pray upon the idiocy and ignorance of the typical consumer and moviegoer. Last summer Roland Emmerich produced the ridiculous flick ?The Day After Tomorrow?. This was the most absurd movie I have viewed, well, ever. This was an obvious attempt to pray upon the limited and left leaning intellect of the would be ?green? voters to get them to the polls to vote against President George W. Bush. Mike Walters writes ?The film packages and sells what environmentalists have been preaching in schools and in public for decades: the idea that technological advances that prolong and enrich human life come at the cost of destroying the planet through global warming - a suggested increase in worldwide temperatures caused by man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. With the release of "The Day After Tomorrow," people and the media have a renewed interest in this topic. However, there seems to be a lack of hard evidence suggesting that the earth really is getting warmer, that such weather patterns are outside of the normal fluctuation ranges or that any of it is caused by human activity. (Walters)?
If this issue were just the beliefs of some burned out chain rattling hippies it would not be that big of an issue. Walters states that ?If this were a small misunderstanding, it wouldn't be a problem to clear up. However, an incredible amount of people believe in this. In a national survey of 1,000 adults conducted by the polling firm Global Strategy Group this year, 70 percent of Americans polled said they consider global warming to be a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. (Walters)? While I have not performed such a detailed study myself I have found the results to be similar even among students of my esteemed institution who should frankly know better. Often when discussing environmental issues with the average student I find myself as confused as Michael Moore at a Mensa convention. This disinformation is a plague sweeping our country by virtue of our pitiful system of public education and ultimately maturing into misguided leftists making their voting decisions on science which is less substantial than the story of Rumpelstiltskin.
In closing it is important to remember when discussing with these well-meaning but poorly educated wing nuts that they truly mean well. They really believe that America is to blame for the imaginary problems of the planet. We are constantly bombarded with stories of how evil American corporations are shipping all of the American manufacturing jobs to China. It seems logical to me that manufacturing, i.e. factories would produce massive amounts of pollution. I have yet to hear however one environmental organization blame China or the Russia for any environmental problems. I believe this disrobes the wizard of environmentalism and shows him for what he really is, an America hating pagan.
In summary I hope to have dispelled some of the beliefs of this cult of ignorance and manipulation and showed it for what it really is. As long as Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and Earth First are profitable these myths will keep being perpetuated perhaps Karry Mullis the 1993 Nobel Prize Winner said it best "Environmentalists predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."