As I look back over what is in this book it seems almost impossible. In the 1970‘s the temperature cooled and led some ―scientists‖ to conclude that we were heading into a very bad – even cataclysmic – cold temperature that would be devastating to us. Ten years later as the climate warmed a group of scientists started speculating about global warming. Someone must have recognized an opportunity for making money and In 1988 an organization was formed within the United Nations. (That seems appropriate for the U.N. is about as phony as you can get.)
But, that organization had little effect as a climate change organization. It needed some scientific authorities who would project catastrophic conditions that would happen due to global warming. Those ―scientists‖ would need to be capable of lying and ignoring some factual data and they did. And they would need to have governmental power to establish rules and laws that would require action. And, they would need a lot of gullible people and corrupt politicians to support ridiculous claims.
39
Records at that time showed that the warmest year in the past century occurred in 1934 and the third warmest was in 1921. NASA, a supposedly realizable source, stated that 1998 was the warmest year on record and only corrected that much later after much damage was done. The facts were bad for the group for If 1934 was the warmest and no dire, terrible consequences had happened then there would be no problem to be solved. The ―scientists‖ continued their program for their livelihood depended upon it and they forecast a continuing warming.
However, the planet started to cool slightly and after 1998 there was no discernable sign of warming. That did not stop them for they continued to predict that the globe would warm drastically. Even now, without any factual indication that the globe is warming they continue their programs and plans to solve this ―terrible‖ problem.
However, global warming is not enough. In order for it to be useful for the alarmists it was necessary for them to have something to blame on people. So, carbon dioxide became the real problem. Carbon dioxide was ideal for several purposes. First, it is easily identifiable. It is created by burning coal and wood, exhaust fumes from gasoline, exhalation from humans and animals and even release from decaying plants. They could not use the most prevalent part of the atmosphere – water vapor – but carbon dioxide is the next most prevalent gas (about 4% of the atmosphere) and generally attributed to mankind so it was chosen.
There was one big problem with that for carbon dioxide is extremely beneficial for mankind. In fact, so beneficial that it is absolutely necessary for our existence.
But, it was the only thing they had so knowing that they had tremendous influence over the media they selected and demonized carbon dioxide.
The result is hard to believe. Now they turned to the governments who passed laws to limit carbon dioxide emissions and that led to cap and trade legislation and the transferring of money from big operations to smaller ones with a small percent being given to the exchanges set up to handle such transfers.
Then, subsidies were given to those who manufactured ―clean‖ energy. Wind towers, solar panels, electric cars, biomass operations and etc.. Subsidies were necessary for none of those are economical feasible.( I do enjoy electric vehicles on the golf course – the one place where they do make sense).
A submittal in the Wall Street Journal by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus on November 12, 2010 summarizes it well. Writing about the next scheduled climate change summit he says, ― Attendees in Cancun will be singing the same tune they did last year: Nations must commit themselves to drastic , immediate carbon cuts. This ignores both the economic reality and 20 years of experience that tells us that this policy choice is incredibly expensive, utterly ineffective and ultimately politically unsellable. How did we get to the point where we have fixated on a response to climate change that would do so little good for such a high cost?‖
Mr. Lomborg is one who believes that climate change is a problem but recognizes that the approach restricting carbon dioxide is not the answer.
He‘s right about carbon dioxide restriction not being the answer but he‘s also wrong about global warming being a problem. This old earth has existed for a few thousand years and is doing quite well and it seems logical to predict that it will continue to do so. We are too puny to have much effect on it even if it was a problem.
There have been fortunes made from this made - up catastrophe. A whole industry has been developed. Carbon cap and trade has led to the transfer of lots of money. Manufactures of various devices have been given subsidies and have produced very expensive items –
wind tunnels, electric cars and solar panels and stuff. Those manufacturers have employed lobbyists to influence stupid legislators and the list of people employed goes on and on. There is no doubt that billions of dollars (maybe a $ trillion) have been spent on this and there has been no, repeat no economical benefit from this and since there is no global warming and since carbon dioxide is not a problem there is also no climate benefit produced. Because of government intervention many of the perpetrators of this scheme have gotten rich (remember Al Gore?). They are crooks and our government is stupid or insane.