Trickle Up Poverty (24 page)

So goes the fairy tale.

Al’s original self-serving, fabricated notion of a warming earth crisis has snowballed and is promoted relentlessly by an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), whose claims are backed by a group known as the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Great Britain. It was revealed through e-mails made public in November, 2009, that the CRU systematically falsified data and generated fraudulent computer models to support their pro-global warming agenda.

Writing for New American, Rebecca Terrell and Ed Hiserodt discuss the role of climatologist Professor Phillip D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, who was among the “scientists” contributing to the now discredited IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4). Jones refused to produce the raw data on which his projections were based when he was requested to do so, and his e-mails are among the most damning of those released.

In them, he whiningly requested that several of his colleagues “delete any emails you may have had … re AR4.” He promised to do likewise. Jones was also a leader in trying to get peer-reviewed articles that disputed the CRU and IPCC claims of global warming barred from publication. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” he wrote in an e-mail to a colleague. “I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”16

What’s more, Jones, while making his climate analysis, failed to sufficiently factor in the fact that the weather stations he used to record temperature readings on earth were subject to urban heat. One reporter puts it this way: “Stations that used to be rural are now in cities. And because it is always warmer in cities than outside, the temperatures measured at these stations are bound to rise.”17 If Jones didn’t get something as basic as that right, what’s to say his approach to scientific discovery in other areas of this issue was not equally flawed?

Are you starting to get the picture?

This isn’t science. It’s an outright fraud.

Which explains why the majority Germans who, in the past, were ardent supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), are now overwhelming saying, Auf Wiedersehn, to this myth. In April, 2010, a leading German newspaper assembled one of the most comprehensive and damning indictments of AGW. The paper quotes Reinhard Hüttl, one of Germany’s leading scientists, who is clearly unhappy about the blind eye some in the scientific community exhibit—as Jones has done—in the face of contrary evidence to pet theories. Hüttl said, “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings.” Hüttl adds, “scientific research is all about results, not beliefs. Unfortunately, there are more and more scientists who want to be politicians.”18

The evidence of this scam grows with each passing day.

When challenged about his raw data and the lack of accurate record-keeping practices, the discredited co-conspirator of Climategate, Professor Jones, made an astonishing confession: there hasn’t been any “statistically significant” global warming for fifteen years!19 Talk about an earth-shattering admission. Of course, you probably didn’t hear that in the news since only a handful of media outlets reported it.20

These revelations created the perfect storm for global warmers, and an embarrassed Al Gore had to swing into damage control mode. Utilizing mental gymnastics worthy of a North Korean peace prize recipient, he responded to the groundswell of critics with an editorial in the Old York Times. Gore wrote, “I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovering of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing … What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.”21

What planet is this man living on?

These “mistakes” are, by the way, the same data and computer models that the U.S. Congress used in order to justify the cap-and-trade legislation. Will the fact that the data and computer models have been revealed as fraudulent halt the global warming movement via cap-and-trade? As Terrell and Hiserodt explain:

Of course not. Cap-and-trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over. Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific

fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol?

Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their “green” agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the “science” supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed.22

Speaking of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, leave it to Doc Savage to say what nobody else has said. I want you to look at those who attended this sham. Let’s start with one of the world’s worst dictators, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, who has destroyed his nation. Why am I not surprised that Mugabe is in favor of climate control legislation? Then there’s Hugo Chávez, the socialist dictator of Venezuela, who supports climate control legislation.

To me, that says it all.

What more do you need to know?

These dictators favor such a bill because it will take money from your pocket and give it to them so they can continue to oppress their own people. And yet the dunces of the West attending the Copenhagen conference were all dancing to their tune—with President Obama leading the chorus line. Obama, who probably never owned a microscope, told his fellow dictators, “We would not be here unless you, like me, were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction. It is science.”23

If I had been in the room, I would have said, “Mr. Obama, I know a little bit more about science than you do. You’re a politician. Science is based upon facts, not politics. To suggest that all scientists agree is unto itself a lie. When it comes to climate science, there’s a great debate raging within the scientific community. This thing is far from settled.” Has Obama forgotten that, as recently as 1974, TIME magazine warned another Ice Age was in the works?

Look at what TIME reported:

… when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere … the ice and snow cover [in the Northern Hemisphere] had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round 24 [emphasis added].

So which is it? Is the world warming as Obama and Goreleoni claim?

Or should we be anticipating another ice age as predicted by TIME?

Could both realities be true because they represent the natural course of physics? Trying to make a connection between human activities and the warming or cooling of the world is simply foolish. A writer for Accuracy in Media puts it this way: “In general terms, the Earth’s climate is determined by the sun, the oceans, and other factors of such magnitude as to suggest that an ant hill poses a threat to a skyscraper.”25

As any student in the fifth grade knows, there have been at least five ice ages in the history of planet Earth. At one time, ice covered the planet from the North Pole down to the Great Plains almost to the equator. And yet, somehow the ice receded long before man invented the internal combustion engine, decades before the creation of the first Model-T or even the millionth SUV hit the streets.

What’s more, when compared to the number of people who inhabit the earth today, the population of humankind was rather small during the most recent ice age. So, why did the ice melt? Did man somehow create global warming to end that ice age because he rubbed a few sticks together to build his campfire?

None of this matters to President Obama.

His mind has been made up because he wants global warming to be true. Why? Because that will enable him to confiscate and control an even larger portion of the private sector. So, with the soaring voice of a preacher, Obama concluded his message to the delegates in Copenhagen, saying, “With courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibilities to our people and the future of our planet.”26 With “courage and faith”?

Obama went from science to faith in order to save the planet.

Thankfully, as of this writing, cap-and-trade legislation has stalled in the Congress. But don’t be fooled. That setback isn’t about to thwart Barack Obama in his quest for ultimate power and authority over every aspect of our lives. Indeed, one of the characteristics of Obama’s governance is that he has no respect for the rule of law or for the U.S. Constitution. If he can’t implement his agenda through the legislative process, he’ll bypass Congress and find a way to achieve his ends regardless. He’s demonstrated this particularly egregiously with regard to his energy policy agenda.

When cap-and-trade bombed out in Congress, Obama, using an ill-advised 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said that the so-called “greenhouse gas” carbon dioxide was a pollutant and that the EPA had the “obligation” to regulate greenhouse gases, went ahead and empowered that government office to do what the failed legislation was designed to do.27

Mark my words. Just as President Obama and his gangster regime rammed a socialist healthcare plan through Congress using tactics seen in South American banana republics, he won’t stop until he shoves cap-and-trade down our throats, too. If so much were at stake, upwards of $45 trillion worldwide,28 wouldn’t you at least want to hear all sides of the argument? While President Obama and many members of Congress turn a deaf ear to the emerging Climategate scandal, the middle class and the Tea Party movement are awakening to the fact their pocketbooks and wallets are about to get screwed.

Sticking It to the Middle Class: All Cost, No Benefit

The other day, I was in the supermarket picking up a few things for dinner. I was headed toward the checkout line when a woman who drove her shopping cart like a go-cart cut me off. She blazed a trail through the vegetable section in order to cut me off at the pass. I’m about to put my four items down and this clipped hair lib cuts in front. I looked at her, but didn’t say anything.

As she put down her six or seven items, she started to fume. I can tell by the way she’s tilting her head that she’s counting the number of items of the person in front of her. She’s gunning for a fight. This was the express lane after all, the one with a ten-item limit. The guy up front had eleven items. Granted, he had two bananas. The bananas were probably once together. So the lady develops an attitude. She’s itching to bust him. I can tell she’s dying to say, “Hey, they’re not connected anymore. You took them apart.” Theoretically, he could be thrown off the express lane.

Admittedly, while I didn’t appreciate being cut off by her, I can understand her impatience. My patience is tried when I get stuck behind a troublemaker in a supermarket line. They know it’s a checkout line for ten-items-or-less, and the sign clearly says “express,” but then he pays by check! Granted, the sign doesn’t say “cash only” and there’s no governing legal authority to settle the matter.

Still, when they pull out their checkbook, moths fly out of the pages and I’m stuck. Slowly, they fill out the check as if they’re an ancient scribe carefully transcribing the Old Testament. Meanwhile, the express line has grown until it circles back to the meat department. Now I’m fuming.

The manager sends the guy with the earrings and pierced nose to open another lane. The kid mumbles, “Next in line.” Naturally, it’s always the guy just behind you who didn’t put the groceries down that he takes in his lane. If you were to say, “Wait a minute. I’m next,” the kid suddenly thinks he’s a member of the UN peacekeeper force. He says, “No, sir, next in line. You already put your groceries down.”

I hate shopping for this reason. They’ve taken all the joy out of it.

Normally I enjoy walking down the rich aisles of America’s supermarkets, particularly when I see the bountiful harvest that we have. It all dies for me at the checkout line. Here’s the connection to cap-and-trade. There’s one thing about shopping you can count on. Whether you’re at the grocery store, a department store, or the gas station, when it comes to making a purchase, you know the price of what you’re buying before you have to pay for it.

There’s no ambiguity, no guesswork, and no costly surprises.

That’s not the case when it comes to paying for President Obama’s costly cap-and-trade scheme. If Congress buys into this unnecessary legislation and passes some version of cap-and-trade, guess what? Nobody knows the real cost of what we’re “buying”! Although we’re left to foot the bill for the rest of our lives, not one person in Congress can tell you, with precision, what you the middle-class consumer must fork over to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Did you get that?

Not one person.

Projections regarding the final cost to the taxpayer are all over the map. The Wall Street Journal concurs: “The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in.”29 And, while cap-and-trade legislation is supposed to provide a “solution” for the threat of global warming, it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.