Since Liberals Demand Accountability: Can Global Warming “Experts” be Disappeared?
Home  |   Cover  |  America  |  World
Environment  |  Recent  |  Life  |  Video
Losers Should Leave Town, as a Possible New Ice Age Appears!

Since Liberals Demand Accountability: Can Global Warming “Experts” be Disappeared?

 By Kelly OConnell  Monday, January 6, 2014

In like a lion, out like a lamb—or, it began with a growl, but ended with a whimper! What did? Why, Global Warming, naturally. Of course, it wasn’t supposed to end like this! Midwest wind-chill temperatures could hit -70˚ tonight, as meteorologists predict the lowest readings in decades. Meanwhile, in the antarctic, pinned near glaciers, a second ice breaker must be freed by the US Coast Guard.

This, after the first ice-breaker became trapped while attempting to rescue a research ship cruising to the South Pole to prove Global Warming! The marooned research ship only served to highlight the fact that the South Pole ice shelf has never been thicker.

In other words, the world is not going to fry anytime soon. But, speaking of which—how about puttings all the “expert’s” feet to the fire for fear-mongering, predicting disaster and demanding ruinously expensive corrections?

But isn’t it time we hold self-professed liberal “experts” accountable for all the many times they are mistaken? Especially when these mistakes cost society wealth and lives? After all, if leftists were screaming for the head of top duck Phil Robertson, for his sins—shouldn’t they be good sports and voluntarily drop out?

Perhaps even more importantly, our society must keep track of the failures of its self-appointed experts to make sure we are getting the very best direction possible. And this just isn’t about Global Warming, but a thousand liberal fantasies, perpetually foisted upon a credulous public with short memories, little logical skills, and much hope for a coming utopia where work is easy, recreation almost limitless, risks few and rewards bountiful.

As Jackson Browne once warned, in Before the Deluge, those who believe they understand nature may be destroyed while mistakenly trying to protect it:

Some of them were dreamers
And some of them were fools
Who were making plans and thinking of the future
With the energy of the innocent
They were gathering the tools
They would need to make their journey back to nature

While the sand slipped through the opening
And their hands reached for the golden ring
With their hearts they turned to each other’s heart for refuge
In the troubled years that came before the deluge

Some of them were angry
At the way the earth was abused
By the men who learned how to forge her beauty into power
And they struggled to protect her from them
Only to be confused
By the magnitude of the fury in the final hour

And when the sand was gone and the time arrived
In the naked dawn only a few survived
And in attempts to understand a thing so simple and so huge
Believed that they were meant to live after the deluge

I. Ship of Fools—What Happened to Global Warming?

Always a theory at risk of imminent exposure, Man-made Global Warming (AGW—Anthropomorphic Global Warming), we should be surprised that AGW lasted as long as it did. For Global Warming is popular, anecdotal “science,” wholly dependent upon the credulity and popular support of the masses. In fact, Global Warming is no different than phrenology, the notion that bumps in the skull determine personality.

The theory behind Global Warming is that the rise in atmospheric carbon would inexorably lead to a rise in global temperature. One attractive aspect of this theory is that it is so large its almost impossible to verify. Yet one easy proof was needed—overall, global temperatures had to rise, on average. But, when this did not occur, the Global Warming crew had to argue that it was not warming, but climate change which was the issue. Yet, this created a problem of there being no way to prove Global Warming, any longer. And a science, without proof, is no science at all.

Yet, it took an academic scandal, in the release of private emails from East Anglia University, to cast doubts on the intentions of the experts. Once the emails were hacked, the public began to realize all was not as it seemed. Instead of neutral and high-mined scientists, toiling in happy obscurity, letting the facts lead where they would, something else appeared to be afoot. Instead of pure science, a seething hotbed of politics, publicity, power and ego boiled beneath the surface, like a madman’s laboratory.

II. Global Warming’s Carbon Credit Confidence Game

The price of addressing Manmade Global Warming was going to be absolutely massive. This was the beauty of the scam. You couldn’t really put a price on saving the earth for the whole human race, not to mention the rest of the animals. Any price to save all life would be cheap.

For some reason, carbon was made the devil of the world. Yet, one of America’s most eminent scientists, Freeman Dyson claims such concerns cannot be aided by an addiction to bad computer models and poor data gathering (video 1, video 2). Dyson stresses that, not only is the ground temperature impossible to measure, but not the chief concern, anyway. He claims Stratospheric Cooling is mankind’s biggest threat.

Since carbon was singled out, it had to be managed. This was done by encouraging nations to lower their “carbon footprint,” or to trade with poorer, less developed nations for their “carbon credits.” The net effect of this was to be for wealthier countries to exchange with less established ones the right to commence economic activity in exchange for cash. In addition to supposedly reducing carbon, and therefore Global Warming, this model fulfills Karl Marx’s command to reallocate wealth from rich to poor. And a giant marketplace was being assembled, which would be directed by such persons as Al Gore, to trade carbon credits.

Coincidental, or not—the solution to Global Warming just happened to coexist with the progressive, group-based answer to world inequality, poverty and war. Yet deep thinkers like Eric Hoffer or Thomas Sowell warn against the simplistic allure of joining a mindless, ideological mass movement. Yes, even one whose intent was to save the earth. Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, explained why people joined mindless movements;

Here is the means by which a mass movement accentuates and perpetuates the individual incompleteness of its adherents. By elevating dogma above reason, the individual’s intelligence is prevented from becoming self-reliant. His innermost craving is for a new life - a rebirth - or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by identification with a holy cause. An active mass-movement offers them opportunities for both. If they join the movement as full converts they are reborn to a new life in its close-knit collective body, or if attracted as sympathizers they find elements of pride, confidence, and purpose by identifying with the efforts, achievements, and prospects of the movement.

Likewise, Thomas Sowell, in The Vision of the Anointed, describes how the elites use the ruse of a contrived crisis to justify massive intervention to forestall a catastrophe. The intervention is then implemented, which then causes a wholly avoidable, created manmade disaster.

But according to the Guardian, “Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP.” In fact, even if there were Global Warming, how would anyone measure its effects with any certainty?

According to Forbes, despite having no clear Global Warming policy, the US is spending beaucoup bucks fighting the menace:

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion. The U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

More shockingly, the amounts spent by US business for green, standards is appalling:

Compliance with green regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included.

Overall, even Global Warming boosters are forced to admit there has been no temperature increase for 15-20 years. Further, the computer models used for predictions have repeatedly failed to predict future events. And most of the disaster projections ares based upon these. Finally, it has become impossible to ignore that the earth is simply not getting warmer, but cooler—according to the experience of most folks.

III. New Rule: Bogus Policy = Loser Leaves Town

In days past, when a public official or prominent professional advocated policies that turned ruinous, there used to be a day of reckoning. Now, instead, leftists are allowed to make any number of false, mistaken, and even patently dishonest statements without suffering any consequence. This is because ideology has so taken over our universities, government, media and political processes that citizens are utterly distracted. No longer are we trained in logic, scientific thinking or common sense.

Many scientists, politicians, and celebrities have joined the effort to force Global Warming measures down the throats of Americans. Should not these persons also bear the risk of trying to influence public policy in America, which, if mistaken, could pointlessly cause mass unemployment and even economic collapse? After all, noted science expert and singer Sheryl Crowe wants Americans to use just one square of toilet paper per trip.

Many scientists have colluded in the scam, in a mad dash for fame, power and wealth. Finally, the average American has caught onto the hoax, as about 7 in 10 believe science is being falsified to support the Global Warming racket.

But, occasionally a scientist is held accountable for Global Warming dishonesty. For example, the US researcher who wrote a misleading paper suggesting polar bears were dying off because of increased heat, was investigated and terminated.

Typical of the superficial Hollywood leftism, high school graduate Leonardo DiCaprio, did voice over work for the 2011 scaremonger Global Warming documentary, The 11th Hour. It’s interesting how many entertainers seem educated when reading a script, but hopeless with complex subjects on their own.

In February 2013, a number of Hollywood celebrities, including Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Woody Harrelson, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Edward Norton, Adam Levine and Morgan Freeman bought a full page ad in a WA DC newspaper, demanding Obama “phase out” fossil fuels, stating:

Your legacy as 44th president of the United States rests firmly on your leadership on climate disruption. Only the president has the power to lead an effort on the scale and with the urgency we need to phase out fossil fuels and lead America, and the world, in a clean energy revolution.

But what to do about the massive amount of misinformation put out by either willful or wholly ignorant pseudo-science advocates?


Contact Us

Kelly OConnell
Bio and Archives