Details

Created on Monday, 25 July 2011 16:29

I have been asked to weigh in on Global Warming, and I can tell you that I am opposed to the dogma of Global Warming. I realize that I am not a climatologist, but there are certain facts that are indisputable. One is that world temperatures peaked in the 1990s and have been cooling ever since.  Here in Central Texas, we have been getting progressively colder winters. Last winter saw record-breaking cold (13 degrees) and more sub-freezing days over the course of the winter than in 50 years.  Two, over Earth history, temperatures have fluctuated a lot, but there is no consistent correlation with higher CO2 levels, i.e., there have been warm periods with lower CO2 and cold periods with higher CO2. So, other factors are always involved. And one of them is number three on our list: sunspot activity. Sunspot activity is in decline, and we are approaching what is called a “solar minimum.” This is not in dispute. And solar minimums are associated with decreasing temperatures, including ice-ages.  And speaking of ice-ages, we’re due for one.  Most inter-glacial periods last for 10,000 years.  Ours has already lasted for 11,000. So, we are overdue for an ice-age, and it is now known that the transition to an ice-age can take place very quickly.

But, what if the fearmongers of global warming are right and it comes true? It would by no means be an unmitigated curse.  Yes, there would be the coastal flooding problems, but there would be time to prepare for that. But what about the boon to agriculture? Think about all the immense swaths of untapped virgin farmland across large stretches of Russia and Canada (the two largest countries in the world) that would become arable because of longer growing seasons.  It would be a boon not just to those two countries but to the entire world as food became plentiful and cheap.

Remember what we are talking about with global warming: we are talking about more solar energy reaching the Earth. And solar energy is the ultimate source of all energy on Earth with the exception of hydropower which harnesses gravitational energy.  But all the rest comes from the sun, directly or indirectly. So, would it be so terrible if we had more of it?

But again, unfortunately, it looks like there is a greater chance of global cooling than global warming in the decades ahead, and I truly regret it.

Politically, I urge you to vote against anything and everything that pertains to governmental attempts to combat global warming.  It’s all part of the march to tyranny, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that you should not be conservative about your fuel use, your so-called "carbon footprint," because there are other reasons  to do so which are valid, such as reducing air pollution.  But indubitably,  the  global warming mantra is part  of the statist, globalist, power-driven mentality that is the enemy of humankind.