WARNIING:
Very long post today. Rainy weather chased me indoors and I have been
penning a letter to my Bishop who supports the pope's encyclical on global
warming. Still tinkering and in a bit irony, Lex jr. is helping me.
As country kid who spent his youth bailing
hay and camping out down by the creek and most of his adult life trapesing
across America’s parks while “camping” with the US Marine Corps, I concur with
your thoughts on protecting the planet’s resources found in the June 28th
edition of Today’s Catholic – with the exception of attributing global warming
to greenhouse gasses.
First, the Earth’s climate has been
changing since Genesis. Between
800-1200, long before man started “destroying the environment” with the
internal combustion engine, the Vikings were farming in Greenland and
Iceland. Why do “most scientists” choose
to ignore that fact when telling us CO2 is responsible for today’s
warming? Then there was the mini ice age
in the 1500s. The only thing consistent
about the Earth’s temperature is that it is always changing.
Second, relying on “most scientists” or
what is often referred to as scientific consensus is folly. Consensus is how prom queens are elected and
has nothing to do with science. When Al
Gore relies on “scientific consensus” to say, “The debate on global warming is
over” you know two things are certain; the debate is raging and he’s
losing. An indication of the “science”
Gore understands is that he once told an audience that the temperature of the center
of the earth was “several million degrees.”
He was only off by…several million degrees. The Earth’s core temperature is estimated to
be 10,000 degree.
Then consider the lengths “most
scientists” will go to make sure their finding go unchallenged. They place temperature monitoring equipment
on airport runways where the equipment is exposed to jet exhaust, or on roof
tops next to air conditioner discharge units, or next to black top parking
lots.
Then there are the 2009 e-mails from
the East Anglia climate research unit that proves its scientists were willing
lie about, make up and/or hide data to ensure nothing contradicted their point
of view.
Then there’s Mann’s “hockey stick,” a
pivotal piece in the climate hysteria. It was proven to be a statistical fraud in
2003, yet it is still circulated as an accurate portrayal of the Earth’s
warming. Mann, no fool, calls his
statistical method intellectual property and refuses to share or allow others
to examine or review his code. That
would be Mann’s version of Al Gore’s “the debate is over.”
Then there’s NASA’s erroneous claim
that 2014 hottest year on record. It
wasn’t even close. That erroneous report
occurred after NASA was caught artificially inflating US temperature by .15
degree in 2007.
Forget the fact that every single
prediction made by “most scientist” to date with regard to the Earth’s warming
has been wrong in spectacular fashion, why should we accept the word of “most
scientists” who admit and have been caught lying about data, making it up and
hiding it? If they are so sure why not
just publish the real data? And isn’t
odd that even the climate alarmist have to admit that there hasn’t been any
warming for over 18 years now? They are
calling it a “pause.” I refer to it as
“the cycle.”
Third, the hypocrisy of the “global
warming” crowd is stunning. A chief
spokesman for the cause, Al Gore, has gotten very rich off of the global
warming hysteria that he stokes. He
lives a life of luxury jetting to and fro to tell us to stop driving our
cars. He has a fleet of SUVs and a
10,000 square foot home that uses more than 20 times the electricity of a
normal home. Gore claims he offsets his
fossil fuel use by buying “carbon credits”…from himself. In the Marine Corps we referred to such an
arrangement as a “self-licking ice cream cone.”
So I guess if I want to show the world how committed I am to saving the
planet I will buy some carbon credits from myself.
The global climate alarmists want the
little people to eschew fossil fuels while they all jet into Davos aboard separate
private jets, reside in 5 star accommodations and dine on the finest fresh
foods and wine all flown in to pamper this elite group who would have the rest
of us walking to work, residing in 400 square foot apartments and living on
distilled water and an environmentally friendly gruel. My question is, if the people who actually
believe this nonsense are unwilling to curb their own lifestyle to save the
planet why should I?
Fourth, what if the planet is
warming? Why is it assumed that a
certain temperature is best? We know
that the Earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since day one so who’s to say
this +.15 degree is worse than that -.15 degree. Wouldn’t a longer warmer growing season make
food more plentiful? Wouldn’t warmer
winters be welcomed by most?
Fifth, given the power of the sun,
volcanos, ocean currents, hurricanes, winds aloft etc. even if believe man is
impacting the climate his impact since the beginning of time is less than the
eruption of a single volcano. His contribution to global warming is less than
one season of the sun’s solar flares.
I could go on but here’s the point. I believe that the real goal of the climate
alarmists is to destroy capitalism.
Notice the pressure is always on the US and west to curb fossil fuel use
to save the planet when in fact it is the under developed countries using old technologies,
less clean energy sources and less efficient manufacturing methods that
contributes the most to the problem they describe as manmade global warming. Well over 90% of the Earth’s CO2
emissions occur naturally. Those that
are “manmade” occur primarily in under developed countries. To the extent that these are countries and
their citizens are poor it is due more to the uneven distribution of capitalism
than it is of the uneven distribution of capital. So if the church wants to
curb world-wide CO2 emissions and ease poverty, the best way to do
so would be to encourage well-regulated capitalism.
This is the third letter I’ve written
to you. The first was to encourage you
to get the diocese out of the Boy Scouts after that organization relented on accepting
homosexual Scouts. I warned that 99.99%
of homosexuals have about as much interest in joining the Boy Scouts for
purposes other than subverting them as Al Gore and Michal Mann have in learning
the truth about man’s effect on the Earth’s climate. I warned that the BSA
policy was an untenable one and that the BSA would soon relent and allow
homosexual Scout leaders. Recently, the
President of the BSA, Robert Gates, acknowledged as much. The leftist radical homosexual agenda has
little to with acceptance these day. Its
target is Christians in general and Catholics in particular.
The second letter was an effort to
encourage the USCCB to reconsider its support for open borders. A country 18 trillion dollars in debt is not
exactly the poster child for a society fit to throw its doors open to all. I warned that such a policy would soon lead
to a one party state and I believe that we are well on our way to the end.
Here’s a scenario I believe will occur
soon. Once America becomes a one party
state do to its failure to control its own borders, that one party will require
that the Catholic Church marry homosexuals or lose it tax exempt status. (That is if the pope doesn’t have another of
his, “who am I to judge” moments and direct priests to marry homosexuals first.) It will not make one bit of difference to the
leftist running the country that the Church stood with the radicals on open
borders insanity and the global warming charade. The leftist goal is to turn America into a
socialist state. In order to do that the
left has mocked, attacked and is in the process of destroying every traditional
institution in America. Marriage, family,
sexuality, citizenship, the Boy Scouts, the military, privacy, religious
freedom, the right of association are all under withering political attack with very little push back. To say anything happening in America today is
not political is to ignore the goals of the political left. It is all political.
I watch the demise of the country in
slow motion and wonder if anyone cares. There
is no political opposition. They all
seem more afraid of being called a “global warming denier” or a racist, or a
homophobe than standing against the policies destroying the nation. I would like to see the USCCB stand opposed to
the political movement that would abolish the Catholic Church today if it could,
but am always amazed/disappointed when it joins forces with a political movement
intent on destroying it.
Alas,
I must concede that I am the outlier here.
Of all the causes the pope and the USCCB could chose to use their influence
to affect, I don’t see global warming in the 100. So I have to wonder why.