Let’s just look at a few drastic examples as to what has happened during the past year:

1.         Do we all remember when gasoline prices at the pumps throughout the country jumped to over $4.00 per gallon, based on oil prices of up to $147.00/barrel this past summer during June and July? The ‘experts’ forecasted that these prices would be with us for a while and might even go up to over $5.00/gallon or $200.00/barrel. This was immediately responded to by calls for more domestic oil drilling and building of nuclear power plants among other such proposals. Energy independence was a major campaign element propagated by both Presidential candidates and many others as well. Bumper stickers called for “Drill, Baby, Drill” and the only recognizable action taken during this time was the lifting of an Executive Order by President Bush to allow Offshore Drilling for oil. Well, five months have passed since then and what do we have? We have seen oil being sold for about $40.00/barrel and a gallon of gasoline has sunk to about $1.75. And guess what: There is no more talk about offshore oil drilling or building of power plants. The topic ‘High Energy Costs’ cannot even be found anywhere in newspapers and magazines let alone being discussed on television. It simply has gone away and is no longer a priority in peoples minds.

2.         The war in Iraq was a major element during this year’s election cycle and every candidate had a plan as to how to end the war in Iraq. Some even had specific timetables. Then-Senator Barack Obama committed to a complete troop withdrawal in sixteen months should he be elected President. He told everybody that the ‘surge’ had failed and that he had been against the war from the beginning, newspapers listed daily casualty figures, the Iraqi government was non-functional and on and on. And where are we now? The surge has obviously worked, as a country, Iraq is stabilizing and becomes more and more self-sustaining, American troops are being withdrawn out of cities and there is a total withdrawal agreement in place ending in 2011. Things have gone so well in Iraq, that while nobody wants to call it a victory for the United States military yet, the topic is no longer an issue of daily articles or debates on television. This all has happened in a matter of several months during this passing year, it’s almost as if the war was over.

3.         The other hot topic in times past was “Global Warming” and the Presidential candidates all lined up in favor of tackling the problems caused by this man-made and world-destroying ‘fact’. Now then, where has this high priority monster gone? Statisticians and record keepers are slowly coming out with facts stating that increases in global warming have not occurred in the past several years and the number of scientists no longer fanatically endorsing this phenomenon is growing by hundreds. In fact, some even recognize that the sun has become less active in terms of flares and that we might be in for a period of ‘global cooling’. We do not believe that it will be difficult to convince residents in Houston and New Orleans when they experience snowfalls in their towns in December that global warming is not really taken place at this time. This does, of course, not mean that this issue has gone away, absolutely not. The climate change enthusiasts are attending currently a major international conference in Poland where they debate and discuss proposals how to fight global warming and climate changes in the near future. These junkets are just too important for these climate doomsayers to postpone them. We wonder if these people feel deep inside a sense of irrationality when they discuss these topics while the outside temperatures are at or below freezing in Poland. But as a daily ‘doomsday prognostication’, global warming is pretty well gone away as a high priority for the worlds population. Unfortunately, the only people who still firmly believe that they have to take drastic action against global warming and climate change are politicians, better known as our elected officials. They are undeterred by realities and facts and they keep on pushing to pass more laws restricting lifestyle freedoms of their constituents.

            Now then, what has caused all this, the changes in priorities? It is called economics also known as a downturn in the well-being of people in general. Even though, there were signs of economic troubles on the horizon for many months, in fact, almost since last year in the housing market, it was not until mid September – a mere three months ago – that the problems suddenly surfaced when the credit markets dried up and the Federal government asked Congress for a 700 billion dollar emergency fund to free up the credit by providing funds for banks and similar institutions. This was followed by additional funding requests for insurance giant AIG and  also Citibank as well as the three major American auto makers in Detroit. Companies across the labor spectrum announced major cuts in employment driving the national unemployment rate steeply upward with no end in sight. Banks have failed in great numbers and in all, the economy is currently topic Number One! Nothing else matters right now and will not even get honorable mention in the media in the near future with the sole exception of the Obama Presidency, starting on January 20, 2009. Now then, is there a message in all this? We think there is and it is called the pocketbook of the American people. People have their priority and it is the well-being of their immediate family! We do not proclaim to know what lies in the future for this country but we would hope that individuals would learn at least one lesson and it is called “Putting money away for a rainy day”. In other words, get off the credit lifestyle and cut back some, get away from the instant gratification of purchasing whatever is desired and instead earn the money before you buy. It could be a great New Years resolution, we think.

Changing Priorities – Real or Political? is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

At this year’s summit, global warming was one of the major topics of debate and – to state it in brief – they agreed to set targets for reducing by half the emissions of green-house gases, in and of itself a very noble goal. However, the target date is 2050! Yes, 42 years from now. This was reportedly part of a United Nations effort to negotiate a new climate pact at the end of 2009 since the so-called ‘Kyoto Protocol’ expires in a few years. Most of the G-8 summit member countries had signed onto this but not the United States. President Bush has been criticized for this but he stated his opposition quite early that it would not be fair to the U.S. economy to comply with Kyoto while the developing nations would get a free pass on the targeted goals of this agreement.

The summit also invited leaders of many developing countries such as China, India and many others representing more than half the planet’s population. These countries were asked to sign onto this new target date but after some discussions, they declined based on their own economic developments. This should not be a surprise since their priorities are internal and while they will give lip service to global warming and climate change concerns, they seriously do not consider it a major problem for themselves since they are in a developing, economy expanding status.

And so the summit ended with an agreement that is totally useless and definitely meaningless for a number of reasons. First and foremost remains the fact that the current leaders will not be around in 2050, President Bush would be 104 years old and while we wish him a long life, we doubt very much that he will be influential in reaching this lofty goal. The same goes for all the other Presidents, Prime Ministers and Chancellor. That is why we consider it such a farce for these individuals to meet and sound off on something where they have absolutely no control over any aspect of possibly achieving it.

To prove this point, Common Sense Politics likes to present an example: Let’s say, there is a street with 33 homes and 5 of the families decide to rid the neighborhood of snails with the goal of doing so in the next 20 to 30 years. What chance of success do you believe they have? We think the answer lies between nil, zip, nada and zero. In twenty to thirty years, in all likelihood, half of the neighbors have moved somewhere else, a vast majority of the neighbors will from the beginning never even participate in this snail eradication program and the new neighbors will likely not feel too strong about this since it was agreed upon by some before they even became neighbors. In short, a totally useless undertaking and flawed in concept and content from the beginning.

To us here at Common Sense Politics, the G-8 summit was in and of itself equally useless when it comes to addressing the topic of climate change or global warming. One would think that they had more pressing things to discuss and decide on while they were meeting and feasting on caviar and other culinary delights and specialties. Don’t they feel somewhat silly coming away from their conference and proclaiming victory in their quest to conquer global warming? Apparently not! It reminds us of an often heard and very common comment by participants of large conferences and meetings in a corporate/office environment where nothing of substance was achieved or agreed upon, this comment was “It was a good meeting.” And many of them felt good about it and were proud of themselves.

The totally useless G-8 Summit is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...
2. Copenhagen or Nohopenhagen?             And there they are: Leaders and representatives of approximately...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In 1988, Mr. Hansen told Congress that Global Warming was fact and that mankind had only twenty years left before irreparable damage would be inflicted on the planet, a point of no return if you will. Well, the twenty years are up, and so, Mr. Hansen was back in Congress on June 23 and warned of even greater and graver consequences if mankind would not take immediate action to thwart Global Warming. And once again, he warned that the planet had only twenty years left before we would reach a point of no return. But to strengthen his message, he also recommended to the Congressional Committee membership that the CEO’s of fossil energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” A recommendation most likely anchored in Mr. Hansen’s belief that they, the CEO’s of Big Oil, had disagreed with him during the past two decades by supporting opposing viewpoints and actively lobbying against laws to curb global warming.

The arrogance of this man exemplifies the extreme beliefs of the Global Warming Scare Mongers (GWSM), led for many years by their number one spokesman Al Gore, who by the way, has reportedly made more than one hundred million dollars on this fraud. They have claimed for years now that the debate over global warming is over and that it is time to act when in fact, there has never been a debate on that subject. This is like someone coming to your front door and asking you for a thousand dollar donation for an as yet to be determined cause and when questioned will add “that it will make you feel better because it is for a good cause and that they might come back again in a few months.” Let’s face it, folks: This is all about your money and restrictions of your freedoms and lifestyles, nothing more and nothing less!

If these “planet-saving” advocates would be serious, they would lead by example. They would reduce their own carbon footprint to show us all that it is possible to live with less comfort. Are they doing this? Of course not! Their lifestyles (including their travels) have not changed one iota and they tell you that they can continue to live the way they live because they have “bought carbon offsets”. We wonder why no journalist or media person ever bothers to ask the simple follow-up question: “Excuse me, Sir, what exactly does that mean? What are you ‘buying’ to reduce your carbon footprint and how much does it cost you?” We do not get answers to these simple questions because nobody dares asking the questions. It is shameful to say at the least. What is even more shameful is that on May 20, 2008, a list of over 31,000 scientists who refute global warming was released. We all read the lengthy articles on the front pages of our favorite newspapers, right? We all heard this news on the evening broadcasts of all television stations, right? NO, WE DID NOT! Compare that to the coverage the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Pro Climate Change advocates, conference in Bali last December received, the papers were full of it for several days.

We have to ask at this point: Could there possibly be a hidden agenda in all this? We strongly believe there is, there should be no doubt about it. When the Global Warming alarmists conspire with the media to ignore the International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York this past March, and the signature lists of over thirty thousand scientists, there must be a reason for it, we at this site are convinced of it. And we are asking them:”If you are so very convinced that you are correct about your beliefs, why should you be afraid to debate them with individuals of opposing views and beliefs.” While we here Common Sense Politics are not scientists, we have enough common sense to doubt what we are being told (and sold). Please, we beg you, one more time, you Global Warming advocates: “Dazzle us with your brilliance and respond to your critics!” Do not try to baffle us with B.S., remember it smells.

Finally, we like to suggest for you all to read the speech Mr. John Coleman before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in early June of this year. Mr. Coleman is an experienced meteorologist with the San Diego television station KUSI.  While it is lengthy, it is definitely worth the time it takes to read it. He gives some very specific examples of why he is a global warming skeptic.

Global Warming Novel – continued is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following is the first part of William Tucker’s speech: 

WILLIAM TUCKER is a veteran journalist. Educated at Amherst College, his work has appeared in Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, the New Republic, Reader’s Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His articles have won the John Hancock Award, the Gerald Loeb Award, the Amos Tuck Award, and he was a finalist for the National Magazine Award. His books include Progress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism; Vigilante: The Backlash Against Crime in America; and The Excluded American: Homelessness and Housing Policies, which won the Mencken Award. His forthcoming book is entitled Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar Alliance Can Rescue the Planet.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2008, during a conference on “Free Markets and Politics Today,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends.

Right now there are 103 operating nuclear reactors in America, but most are owned by utilities (which also own coal plants). The few spin-offs that concentrate mainly on nuclear—Entergy, of Jackson, Mississippi, and Exelon, of Chicago—are relatively small players. As for a nuclear infrastructure, it hardly exists. There is only one steel company in the world today that can cast the reactor vessels (the 42-foot, egg-shaped containers at the core of a reactor): Japan Steel Works. As countries around the world begin to build new reactors, the company is now back-ordered for four years. Unless some enterprising American steel company takes an interest, any new reactor built in America will be cast in Japan.

This is an extraordinary fate for what was once regarded as an American technology. France, China, Russia, Finland, and Japan all perceive the enormous opportunity that nuclear energy promises for reducing carbon emissions and relieving the world’s energy problems as reflected in recent soaring oil prices. Yet in America, we remain trapped in a Three Mile Island mentality, without even a public discussion of the issue. As folk singer Ani Di-Franco puts it, the structure of the atom is so perfect that it is “blasphemy / To use it to make bombs / Or electricity.”

It is time to step back and question whether this prejudice makes sense.

Fossil Fuels

All living things exist by drawing energy from their environment and discarding part of it as “waste,” so there is nothing inherently shameful about energy consumption. Almost all our energy derives ultimately from the sun. Plants store solar energy by transforming it into large carbon-chain molecules (the process we call photosynthesis). The entire animal kingdom draws its energy from this process by “eating” this stored solar energy. About 750,000 years ago, early humans discovered that they could also draw solar energy from a chain reaction we call “fire.” When heated, the stored energy in carbon chains is released. This heat energy can break down other carbon chains, which causes combustion. Fire has been the principle source of energy throughout most of human history. When historian William Manchester wrote a book about the Middle Ages called A World Lit Only By Fire, he was describing the world of only 700 years ago.

All this began to change about 400 years ago when human beings discovered an older source of stored solar energy—coal. Our most common fossil fuel, coal is the compressed remains of vegetable matter that covered the earth 300-400 million years ago. Coal is superabundant and we will probably never run out of it. It was the fuel of the Industrial Revolution, and it is still the world’s largest source of energy. It is also the most environmentally destructive substance ever utilized. The EPA estimates that it kills 30,000 Americans each year through lung diseases (and in China it is doing far worse). It is also the world’s principal source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Oil, another fossil fuel, is rarer and is believed to be the remains of organisms that lived in shallow seas during the age of the dinosaurs. It was first drilled in 1859, but was used only for lighting and lubrication until the invention of the automobile. Now it constitutes 40 percent of our energy consumption and is perhaps the most difficult fuel to replace. American oil production peaked in 1970 and is now declining rapidly—a fact that explains much of our subsequent foreign policy. The Arab oil embargo occurred three years following the peak, when the producing states realized we were vulnerable. The question now is whether world production will reach a similar peak and decline. As Matthew Simmons has written: “We won’t know until we see it in the rearview mirror.” If it does come, it may not look much different from the quadrupling of oil prices we have witnessed in the last three years.

Natural gas is generally considered the most environmentally benign of the fossil fuels. It gives off little pollution and only about half the greenhouse gas of coal. Natural gas was put under federal regulation in the 1950s, so that by the 1970s we were experiencing a supply shortage. Deregulation in the ,80s led to almost unlimited supplies in the ,90s. Then we began the fateful practice of using gas to produce electricity, resulting in a price crunch and the loss of many gas-dependent industries, such as fertilizer and plastics factories, which have since moved to Mexico and Saudi Arabia to be near supplies. Now American gas production seems to have peaked and we are importing 15 percent of our consumption from Canada. Huge gas supplies have been discovered in Russia and the Middle East, but will not do us much good since gas cannot be easily transported over water. Thus China, India and Europe will be able to buy pipeline gas much more cheaply and are already out-competing us on the world market.

Alternative Fuels

Given the precarious state of these fossil fuels, people have begun talking of “alternative” and “renewable” fuels—water, sun and wind. The term “renewable” is somewhat misleading: no energy is “renewable” insofar as energy cannot be recycled (this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The term “renewable” usually describes tapping flows of solar energy that are supposedly “free.” But coal and oil in the ground are also free. It just takes work—and energy—to recover them. So, too, solar “renewables” can only be gathered at a cost. They are often limited and may require extravagant use of other resources—mainly land.
What about water? Hydroelectricity is a form of solar energy. The sun evaporates water, which falls as rain and then flows back to the sea, creating kinetic energy. Rivers have been tapped since Roman times and, beginning in the 19th century, dams were built to store this solar energy. Hydroelectric dams provided 30 percent of our electricity in the 1930s, but the figure has declined to ten percent. And all the good dam sites are now taken.

What about wind? Wind energy has captured the imagination of the public and is touted by many as the fastest growing energy source in the world. All of this is driven by government mandates—tax credits and “renewable portfolio” laws that require utilities to buy non-fossil sources of power. The problem with wind is that it is completely unpredictable. Our electrical grid is one giant machine interconnected across the country, in which voltage balances must be carefully maintained in order to avoid damaging electrical equipment or losing data on computer circuits. Wind irregularities can be masked up to around 20 percent, but after that they become too disruptive. At best, therefore, wind will only be able to provide the 20 percent “spinning reserve” carried by all utilities. In addition, windmills are large and require lots of land. The biggest now stand 65 stories tall—roughly the height of New York’s Trump Tower—and produce only six megawatts, or about 1/200th the output of a conventional power plant. In the East, most are sited on mountaintops, since that is where the wind blows strongest.

What about the sun? Solar energy is very diffuse. A square-meter card table receives enough sunlight to run only four 100-watt electric bulbs. At best, solar could provide our indoor lighting, which consumes about ten percent of our electricity. But keep in mind: gathering and storing solar energy requires vast land areas.

Sunshine can be harnessed directly in two ways—as thermal heat or through photovoltaics, the direct production of electricity. In the 1980s, California built a Power Tower that focused hundreds of mirrors on a single point to boil water to drive a turbine. The facility covered one-fifth of a square mile and produced ten megawatts. It was eventually closed down as uneconomical. Last year, when Spain opened an identical Power Tower in Seville, U.S. News & World Report ran a cover story hailing it as a “Power Revolution.” That facility, of course, is completely subsidized by the government.

Photovoltaic cells have more promise. They are thin wafers where solar radiation knocks the electrons off silicon atoms, producing an electric current. At present, an installation about half the size of a football field could power one suburban home—when the sun shines, of course. The problem is that photovoltaics are enormously expensive; using them to provide one-quarter of an average home’s electricity requires investing around $35,000. Their greatest benefit is that they are able to provide electricity precisely when it is most needed—on hot summer afternoons when air conditioning produces peak loads.

“The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy” (1 of 2) is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Democrat State Senator Joe Simitian from Palo Alto has proposed this idea and the measure mandates that future science textbooks approved for public schools include climate change. According to an article in the Mercury News, dated February 15, 2008 entitled “Bill would require California’s science curriculum to cover climate change”, the Senator says: “We cannot have a science curriculum that is relevant and current if it doesn’t deal with the science behind climate change. This is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon.” The State Senate has already approved the bill, SB 908 on January 30 by a 26:13 vote and now heads for the State Assembly. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has not commented on the bill as yet but he has been known to have taken action to reduce global warming.

The thirteen ‘No’ votes were all cast by Republicans as they believe that the science of global warming is not clear and might inject environmental propaganda into classrooms. Republican State Senator Tom McClintock from Thousand Oaks argued during the Senate debate: “I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject.” This law’s sponsor, Senator Simitian responded that his bill would not dictate what to teach or in what grades, that would be up to the State Board of Education and State Department of Education.

The executive director of the California Science Teachers Association, Christine Bertrand is excited about this piece of legislation: “This is a great idea; I don’t think there is any reason to talk about politics. There is no argument that there is climate change, the argument is how much is caused by the activities of mankind.” She added that teachers would have plenty to talk about, rising levels of carbon dioxide, how temperatures are measured globally and what is known and not known about global warming.

There you have it, folks. Once it becomes law, there is no way to stop it! And what better way to start by making it part of the educational system, teaching it to our kids and spreading this phantom phenomenon by indoctrinating the young ones. They of course will pass it on to Mommy and Daddy and the next thing you know, a vast majority will believe it and will consequently not object when higher taxes will be introduced to fight climate change. And since it will be taught as Man-made global warming, we are all guilty of having caused this situation and are therefore all in this together and we have an obligation to save the planet for future generations.

Back to realities, as it stands right now in California, lawmakers are faced with an annual fourteen billion dollar ($14,000,000,000) budget deficit and some cuts have already been made and signed into law by the governor. But there is still a long way to go before this gigantic problem can be resolved and we doubt very much that Schwarzenegger can keep his promise to Californians to NOT raise taxes. His proposals will include huge increases of fees and permits. So, instead of working around the clock to resolve these budgetary deficits in accordance with state law by finding ways to cut funding for the multitude of state responsibilities without seriously harming such programs, they have to keep on working on new laws that are definitely new funding requirements.

For us here at this Common Sense Thinking, it does not surprise us that, first of all, there are no limitations for lawmakers to come up with new ways to spend more money and secondly, that these proposals come mostly from Democrats. It makes therefore no sense at all to us here; we see it as acting with ignorance and irresponsibility to enlarge government, period!

This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Climate Change in CA Education Curriculum is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...
2. Happy New Year 2010 – A Year of True Change             It is customary to start a new year with...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Yes, they are mostly solar researchers and have studied solar cycles, solar flares and related solar activities and correlated them from a historical perspective. According to the article, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany have found that the Sun has been burning more brightly over the last sixty years, attributing this to Earth’s one degree Celsius temperature over the past century. Mr. Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s national Research Council is among those looking at the Sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity. Scientists know that solar activity fluctuates in 11-year cycles but Tapping reports that the Sun has been disturbingly quiet during the current cycle. This lack of an increase in solar activity could forecast the beginning of a so-called Maunder Minimum, an event that apparently occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

It is the Sun that has over the millions of years affected our planet’s climate the most.  Only people that choose to avoid reasoning, facts or have pointed agendas that conflict with this would dispute this statement (remember Earth has cycled in and out of many ice ages before many populated its surface).  R. Timothy Patterson, a professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences Center of Canada’s Carleton University stated in ‘The Sun also Sets’: “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium or even short time scales. I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the Sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet.” He continues: “Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again.”

A Hoover Institution Study a few years ago examined historical data and came to similar conclusions. The study stated: “The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated always as expected and the pattern was so clear that statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in one hundred. Try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.” The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, “there would not be much effect on temperatures.”

Now then, what do we make of this? Should we just ignore these professional and reasoned scientists and researchers? Who are they compared to, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Global Warming advocate Al Gore? After all, Mr. Gore invented the Internet as he told all of us years ago. He got an Oscar and an Emmy for his Man Made Global Warming fear mongering, so, how can these researchers dare to even utter their contrary findings and opinions? We here at Back to Common Sense do not have the answers to these questions but when witnessing the current climate in this country, we have our doubts about the Global Warming hype. To hear U.S. Senator John Kerry tell the world that he believes the recent tornadoes in several States are a result of Global Warming is stretching our tolerance for nonsense to the absolute limit.  It is all about the definition:  If my nutty neighbor defines cloudy days as night, then in his world this must be true.  This is what is happening with Global Warming, but regarding extreme temperatures.

It appears that a vast number of politicians, if not a vast majority of them have bought into Man-Made Global Warming and are determined to do something about it. It appears that the old adage: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I have made up my mind” has won the battle and our elected officials are dead set on fixing the problem. There is almost a religious fever or fanaticism here when it comes to doing something about Global Warming. This arrogance is truly scary, if not outright frightening! It will not be long until Federal Laws will be passed in Washington D.C. and also in States across the country that will require all of us to pay more in taxes to battle Global Warming and all its side effects like tornadoes, hurricanes and probably earthquakes and other natural disasters. The laws will also curtail our individual freedoms in that there will in all likelihood be limits on recreational activities, travel and lifestyles by putting fees on these things and who knows what else they, our elected officials, can think of. Their collective hunger for power and money (taxes and fees) is simply insatiable. For them, the politicians, there will never ever be enough money to spend.

To use Man Made Global Warming as the latest reason, scheme or excuse, call it what you want, to collect money from us is nothing but dreadful and absolutely disgusting. But it is, as we have stated in a previous article, America’s Number One Enemy “Ignorance” that allows that to happen. If the great masses in our country continue to be willingly uninformed and remain ignorant, Man Made Global Warming will be soon a taxable reality!

This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Global Warming? Global Cooling? What is it? is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

After receiving an Oscar and an Emmy in Hollywood, former Vice-President Al Gore has now added the Nobel Peace Prize to his trophy chest. This is quite an accomplishment. But there could be more. Since no human being has ever had these three awards in one year before, there should be no surprise when he will be announced in December as Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year’ by that publication. The United Nations will probably come up with an appropriate recognition and could give him the “Man of the World Award”. But why stop there. Since his Global Warming pal is Prince Charles of England, what would it take for the Prince to convince his mother the Queen to make him a ‘Knight’? Not much we think.

Since His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI is a firm believer of man-made Global Warming, there should be an appropriate award from the Vatican. Congress bestowed in recent weeks the highest civilian honor on the Dalai Lama by presenting him with the Congressional Medal of Honor, who would seriously question that Al Gore is next in line? We could go on and on. Germany named Michael Jackson in 2000 the entertainer of the millennia, why should anybody be surprised if they decide to give Al Gore their highest national Medal of Honor, this could have a ripple effect throughout Europe in that every other country there could follow suit and join the award presentation avalanche with their own highest national medals.

Is this not amazing in this day and age that a man can go on a campaign without being an expert in any particular field and reap all those honors worldwide?  By making himself the mouthpiece for man-made Global Warming, Al Gore is recognized worldwide as the prophet of bad tidings in our future and we better do agree with him. All those who question him and his message are morons and deniers of undeniable facts. Why? Because he says so! He also admitted that he had exaggerated some facts in his book to embellish the seriousness of the situation.

Never mind that a judge in England in recent weeks ruled that Al Gore’s book ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and the movie of the same title contained numerous gross errors and the judge determined that this had to be highlighted in any presentation of the movie to school children or at colleges prior to showing the film and exposing the students to Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’.

The only sad part in all this is the age of Mr. Gore. He will turn 60 on March 31, 2008. If he were, let’s say, 20 years younger, he could live to possibly receive another Nobel Peace Prize in about 30 years or so, the planet’s climate could change whereby the Earth would be cooling (as it was predicted in the mid 1970’s) and ‘Global Cooling’ could be in the future for all inhabitants on this planet. If he were to become the spokesperson, or megaphone for the Global Cooling prophets, he could get another Nobel Prize in this category. Now would that not be something?

We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ have as little true evidence for that to occur as we have now undisputable evidence of Global Warming. We are not scientists but that does not mean that we have to believe a man like Al Gore who is also not a scientist. Neither did he invent the Internet contrary to his earlier proclamations. Since he is not willing to enter into a debate on the matter of Global Warming in public, is there no room for doubt? Does he not owe us such a debate? We think so instead of being called morons and deniers of absolute facts.

We can probably come up with just ten questions on this subject matter and would like to hear his answers. This might give us a chance to think by ourselves and evaluate whether or not Global Warming is truly Man-made and requires corrective actions by us all. His hiding behind unnamed numbers of scientists does not cut it for us. We have heard from other scientists who clearly and very logically explained why this entire matter is bogus. We do not envy him his trophies to date and all the ones that might yet come his way. We just wonder what America and the world would be like today, had he won the Presidential election in 2000 (with the help indentations and hanging chads). At least, his trophies cannot do us harm but the power of Executive Orders as President could have been extremely dangerous. What if he would have decreed to reduce electricity production in our country by fifty percent or threaten to shut down the auto industry unless they could produce cars with fuel efficiency of 80 miles per gallon? How about rationing of gasoline per family as an interim solution to achieve immediate results to reduce the output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

We sincerely hope that Al Gore will be kept busy for years to come accepting awards from all kinds of sources (as mentioned above) for his world saving efforts; as long as he can be kept out of positions of power where he could actually effect change; in other words, do harm to us all by severely hampering if not outright killing the economy and our livelihood!

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Award-winning Al Gore is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It has to be said that the topic of Global Warming has been brought to the attention of almost everybody who has access to news, regardless of where they live on this planet. It has been debated ad infinitum for several years now and the main reason it is still on the front burner on a daily basis is because it has been disputed whether or not it is man made or a natural occurrence. While the scientific community is split on this topic, the group endorsing Global Warming as a Man Made reality has been the loudest in attacking those scientists and experts who do not agree with them. They have tried to convince us all that Global Warming is caused by mankind, no ands, ifs or buts about it, period! According to them, the doubters of man-made global warming are ignoramuses, idiots and are financially supported by big oil and other major polluters. They have therefore spouted that the debate about this topic is over and that it is time to proceed with action to save the planet before we irreversibly ruin life on Earth as we know it.

Since the media is in full agreement with this group, we hear disproportionate commentary on a regular basis. And then we read what Professor S. Fred Singer has to say and we have to ask: Why is he being attacked and his reputation maligned and distorted by people like Al Gore, Prince Charles of England and the rest of the global warming scaremongers? Let us ask other questions: If you wanted to build a house, would you go to your dentist to let him design it? Would you go to an Accountant to perform a root canal on you? We think not! We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ firmly believe that it is shameful on the part of the Global Warming fanatics to demean true experts with many decades of experience in this field by just dismissing them as simply wrong! When it comes to making such a choice, we take the knowledge of a Professor Singer any day, any time over opinions of politicians, princes and others of their ilk that simply have an agenda and for that even ulterior motives even though their spouted concerns are to save the planet.

Now then, would it not be nice to encourage honest discussions among experts and scientists out in the open for everybody to follow? Is it too late to back off from the current hype and near fanaticism and bring common sense open debate back in order to find true solutions as to whether or not we, the human race, can realistically do something effectively or is it beyond our means? Have these questions been addressed or answered by anybody, we think not!

“Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?” Part 2/2

S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.

Continuation from last week. …

Natural Causes of Warming

A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic erup-tions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.

Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affect-ing cloudiness and thus climate).

Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.

A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of cli-mate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.

Policy Consequences

If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignifi-cant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:|

  Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

  The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

  Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies. 

  Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons. 

None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

Science vs. Hysteria

You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indi-cates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control green-house-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regu-lated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?

To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so seri-ous about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 re-duction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 un-abated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental or-ganizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.

The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways bene-ficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could har-vest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little face-tious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely be-cause of projected increases in agricultural production.

To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.

* * *

The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like pov-erty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security prob-lems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warm-ing. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, par-ticularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. To-day, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.

More on Global Warming, part 2 of 2 is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As time is passing, it is amusing to see who else is getting on the bandwagon by making statements advocating Man – Made Global warming. In the latest group are such persons as Pope Benedict XVI who has called action on climate change a “moral obligation”, the General Secretary of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon who has publicly stated that the ‘debate of Global Warming is over’ and of course, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who hails himself as the leader of political action heroes by implementing laws in California that will reduce carbon emissions by industries by more than 30 percent by 2020, a year well past the end of his governorship.

According to an article in the Independent, a UK publication, “Vatican City has become the first fully carbon-neutral state in the world after announcing it is offsetting its carbon footprint by planting a forest in Hungary and installing solar panels on the roof of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.” The Pope is scheduled to visit the United States next April and will make environmental issues the main focal point of his visit. He will among other things address the United Nations assembly where he will reportedly make an appeal for sustainable development because climate change is affecting the poorest people on the planet. In a speech on September 7, His Holiness stated that there was a “pressing need for science and religion to work together to safeguard the gifts of nature and to promote responsible stewardship.”

Sounds good and definitely well intentioned. We thought to balance this with the text of a speech giving on June 30, 2007 by Mr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence. This article is ‘reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.’ The length of the article forces us to reprint it in two separate parts:

“Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?” Part 1/2

S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.

IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdi-rection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, how-ever, it is essential that people better understand the issue.

Man-Made Warming?

The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?

At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the cli-mate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.

But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.  

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scien-tific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The As-sociated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.

What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time tempera-tures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.

What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large tem-perature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “finger-prints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and alti-tudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increas-ingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peak-ing at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from bal-loon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.

What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere con-tains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby re-duces the effect of increased CO2.

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudi-ness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluat-ing which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.

Man-Made or Natural – Part 1 of 2 is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...
2. Copenhagen or Nohopenhagen?             And there they are: Leaders and representatives of approximately...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Since December 4 of last year, we have posted five articles on Global Warming by trying to understand the issues surrounding them and we invite you to read them again here. Global Warming is reportedly the primary force driving this nearly inevitable disaster that will befall our planet this century if we, the human race do not take drastic steps and measures to avoid it and reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions (CO2) into our atmosphere. We have tried to understand the accuracy of the statements made by those who are convinced that Global Warming will doom us all if we continue with our current lifestyles. We have also questioned their arguments by citing scientists, climatologists, other experts and others who have made strong arguments to the contrary using logic and examples that while global warming might be occurring, humans do not necessarily cause it. Greater than normal solar activity by the sun can be the main reason for this warming trend.

In recent months the debate has changed to an attack on the ‘global warming doubters’ by comparing them to so called ‘Holocaust deniers and Flat Earth Society members’ with the help of the members of the media who have been only too happy to support the statements of the “Global Warming prophets”. Hollywood has also played its part by awarding an Oscar for Best Documentary Film to ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, a movie based on the book of the same title authored by former Vice-President Al Gore and narrated by him. But Al Gore is not alone in his fight to save the planet, he has many like-minded individuals and organizations that all share his vision and are proud to jump on his bandwagon. Someone has even submitted Al Gore’s name for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize and it should not surprise anybody if he should be awarded this esteemed award by the people in charge of the nominating process there. After all, Al Gore considers fighting Global Warming a moral issue!

As United States Senator Dianne Feinstein from California recently stated: The time for debating Global Warming is over, it is now time to act; in other words: We have to start passing Federal laws to mitigate if not avert the unavoidable end of life as we know it! Our “human carbon footprints” as they are called have to be reduced drastically in order to change course in our battle for survival. Even though the Global Warming proponents or prophets do not like it, there is still a lot of doubt out there. Some have called it “a new religion” based on the fervor by which it is trumpeted by its most vocal preachers, others have just stated doubt about this new phenomenon and want more proof before they are willing to spend money to exchange light bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent.

Enter another element

Different people call it different names but it is basically the same thing. You can buy your way out of your dilemma being a Carbon polluter by way of ‘Emissions trading’, ‘Reducing your Carbon Footprint’ and ‘Going Green’! To examine this, we have to do what was first suggested in the movie ‘All the President’s Men’ and that is to “Follow the Money”. What does this mean? Allow us to explain as best as we can: A new industry has sprung up that will – for money (of course) – reduce your carbon footprint, meaning that you can buy your way out of your CO2-producing dilemma (driving SUV’s and other large automobiles, using too much electricity in your home, flying around in private planes, etc) by simply giving money to someone who will plant trees somewhere with your name on it. One such company is called Carbon Planet Pty Ltd in Australia where you can buy Carbon Credits to offset your Greenhouse Gas emissions. If you visit their website, you will find that a resident in the United States can become Carbon neutral by paying for 25 tonnes/year of CO2 credits for the ‘meager’ amount of AU$575.00. According to them, the carbon credits that they retail come from the Forests NSW carbon pool which consists of 32 individual forests that make up the accredited Carbon Pool. These are located in northeastern New South Wales (NSW) Australia, ranging from Taree to the Queensland border.

Well folks, your worries are over: Keep your SUV’s and incandescent light bulbs, continue to “live the life of Riley” because you can buy your way out of your dilemma of being a CO2 contributor (and polluter) for just (at the current exchange rate) US$465.00. “Piece of cake,” you say, put it on the credit card and make monthly payments on it. The main thing being: You do not have to change your lifestyle, period!  Problem solved, go on with your life, feel good about yourselves by having acted responsible in dealing with this major, planet destroying inevitable catastrophy. In addition, you can brag among your friends, neighbors and co-workers what a responsibly individual you truly are.

And now for the real story

Al Gore and a lot of his compatriots of Global Warming Doom and Gloom are doing this already! In his book “The Color of Money”, author James Taranto states and we quote: According to the Tennessean, a newspaper in Al Gore’s home state, he has been buying “carbon offsets” from a company called Generation Investment Management, a company he helped found and of which he is the Chairman. The firm invests in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe. Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, Gore “buys his carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe challenged Al Gore recently during his testimony to a Senate Committee if he would sign his own “Carbon reduction contract” as outlined in his book ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Al Gore evaded answering the question!  Al Gore has stated on numerous occasions: “The time for debate is over.” Let’s take him up on it and stop listening and talking to him unless about his hypocritical behavior! Enough is enough!

A ‘common-sense thinking’ person has to truly question now everything that has been said about the dangers of human caused Global Warming! All the Doom and Gloom warnings have to now be looked at and evaluated through the eyes of a skeptic and question everything that has been said about its true motives. Are these guys, Gore and compatriots, seriously thinking that we can be fooled by  their apparent seriousness trying to save our planet when they are actively involved in Emission trading etc, i.e., making money on it? Their actions remove a lot of credibility on this topic. One has to seriously doubt now, if this hype about the impending doom of planet Earth is not in fact a hoax. Can we not expect at the least from these people that they practice what they preach? Have they not reduced themselves now to being characterized as current day snake oil salesmen? A hoax is a hoax is a hoax.

Unless convincingly proven wrong in our analysis, we shall continue to maintain our skepticism about this entire matter. We will not buy trees in Australia, nor plant any trees on our own land; we will not participate in any other (future) carbon credit trading schemes by “adopting” indigenous tribes in the Amazon or New Guinea nor schemes of similar content. As long as the Global Warming advocates and scaremongers have people like Al Gore as their main spokesman shall we remain very skeptical now that we can follow their money trails and find out how much money they make on this. Stay tuned for new reports on this.

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Carbon Credits not Making Sense? Follow the money! is a post from: Common Sense University

Related posts:

1. Finally – The Climate Change Hoax is Exposed!             For precisely three years, Common Sense University has written...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.