The siren song of environmentalism

It seems the more information that surfaces about the UN’s ineptitude, the more hysterically individuals are buying into the UN’s warnings about climate change, albeit no definitive evidence of the deleterious effects of this phenomenon have as yet been identified. Aside from a few unusually warm summers, which were also evident throughout the 1930s, no one has drowned or starved or lost a home as a direct result of global warming. No islands have been inundated, no flash flooding has occurred in the northern latitudes and 15 minutes ago as I stepped outside the temperature was still below the freezing mark.

---

On the contrary, there have been numerous benefits that have been attributed to the global warming phenomenon, not the least of which is the number of deaths from cold have been dramatically reduced. Other such benefits include longer growing seasons, which will increase global food production and less fuel consumed during winter months, as slightly warmer temperatures will reflect a reduction in home heating. Yet, the hysteria overshadowing the global warming debate has spun completely out of control, as more and more politicians are caving to the lowest common denominator and hitching their fortunes to the global warming bandwagon. Our own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is now a proponent of intervention in efforts to reduce Canada’s emissions and Australia’s John Howard just lost an election, largely due to his refusal to sign onto the Kyoto Agreement. Even George W. Bush is promising action in the fight to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions. It’s high time that we recognized climate change hysteria for what it really is: an opportunity to impose a single central, omnipotent global super-government led by the unelected functionaries that currently run the UN. How bad could that be? The damage these incompetent clowns could wreak on the planet could be of cataclysmic proportions, as they attempt to recreate the concept of governance in their own image. Forget the Magna Carta, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and think about having every aspect of our lives ruled by clueless monkeys whose first and foremost mission is to cover their asses. Democracy? Freedom? These are concepts totally foreign to the majority of bureaucrats running the Big Mistake on Turtle Bay. They’re much more concerned with the redistribution of wealth from industrialized nations to developing nations all in the name of “social justice”. In fact, a big supporter of the UN and former environment minister of a previous Liberal Canadian government, Christine Stewart once said “Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” The recent brouhaha over Stephen Harper’s position regarding the reduction of carbon emissions goes to the heart of what this debate is all about. Harper says that global warming is a global problem and should be solved globally (i.e. all the countries in the world should reduce emissions simultaneously). Not so fast, the developing nations say. Global warming was caused by industrialized nations and they should be the ones forced to reduce their emissions, while those in the developing world can continue to spew out carbon particles ad infinitum. Actually, reducing carbon emissions isn’t a large part of the UN’s agenda, as their functionaries whip up more and more hysteria through half-truths and miscalculations. The UN’s support of the idea of “carbon credits” is proof of that, as it allows people to spew out as much carbon as they like so long as they buy “carbon credits” to offset their output. But has anyone ever asked what happens to those carbon credits? Do they actually reduce the quantity of particulates in the atmosphere or are carbon credits a way to assuage white liberal guilt by paying for transgressions? The UN has long been a source of erroneous information and dire warnings based on ideological considerations rather than reality. The UN’s warnings about the AIDS epidemic are a case in point as were the warnings about the global population explosion. Both turned out to be highly exaggerated for reasons of political expedience. The UN’s claims about global warming are no different. It’s most recent report claimed that 2,500 of the world’s top scientists concurred with the UN’s findings on anthropogenic global warming. The truth is that only 62 of the 2,500 actually reviewed the chapter and of that 62 more than half were critical of the document. Yet still, the UN sings its siren song about catastrophic climate change while a much-dumbed-down humanity accepts it as the gospel truth. What’s needed is a good dose of skepticism mixed with a large quantity of suspicion.