Talk of Waco

By Robbie

May 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

The propogation of fear. The use of fear to promote an agenda. The marketing and distribution of fear for profit. The forwarding or advance of the manipulation of facts and scientific data to promote an inside agenda, to enrich the lives of his inner circle, to wage war against a common enemy, to profit from fear. Sound familiar?

Enough on Al Gore.

Yes, “How dare Al Gore bring science into the equation,” as if science is one voice. As if the whole of science is in agreement with Al Gore. To read this, one would have to suppose that the whole of science is in agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Al Gore and “science,” propagated by John’s statement that “we, as the world’s most prodigious emitter of greenhouse gases,” are solely responsible for global weather cycles and that it is our duty, through national policy, to do something about it.

This is an outrage. The political ramifications are an outrage. Through national policy, implemented by our government, serve only to regulate our behavior under the guise of saving our planet. The regulation of our behavior is, in its most basic form, antithetical to freedom. Our individual liberties are at stake when a government begins changing our light bulbs.

The science, unlike what proponents of man-made global weather cycles promote, is not conclusive. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Hardly a majority of weather scientists agree that man has any role, whatsoever, in the climate of our planet. Not that scientific data is beholden to concensus polling data, but it does show that science is not one loud voice proclaiming Al Gore’s cause.

For starters, it must be noted that our planet is not the only one with a changing climate. Ice caps on Triton, Neptune’s largest moon are melting. Jupiter’s temperatures are predicted to increase by ten degrees, on average. The polar ice caps on our nearest neighbor, Mars, are melting at a higher rate than what we are experiencing. These places all share one common factor. They are all radiated by our sun. Coincidentally, NASA satalites have been detecting an increase in solar radiation.

One of Canada’s leading climatologists, Timothy Ball, a scientist, says about man-made global warming, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.” This scientist recognizes the danger in relying upon the belief in man-made global warming as he continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” He represents science.

Glaciers, by definition, move. As they move, they melt. Glacier movement and melting has provided some of the more spectacular mountain ranges our planet knows. These are places where there are no more glaciers. Where the glaciers have gone away. The greatest disappearance of glaciers, and thus the greatest appearance of mountains, occured at the end of the last great ice age, 10,000 years before the first Hummer rolled off the line. Calling the current, much less dramatic, change in glacial movement, man-made, goes beyond the pall.

This science is in doubt. The science is inconclusive. The science does not agree. In response to what many scientists call false science, we are allowing our government to invade our lives, to tell us how and what to drive, to take money from us in the name of social control. This is not freedom.

By BDDH

May 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

So, Robbie, what is your solution? Do you endorse continuing to pollute our planet, our only living space? Contrary to what some science fiction admirers hope, another “liveable” planet does not exist in our immediate solar system, so preserving our planet is our only hope of survival.

I remember the first time I really SAW air pollution. It was about 1972 when we made a driving vacation into Mexico down to Acapulco. As we approached Monterrey, Mexico, we could see a huge yellow cloud lingering over the city. As we drove into the city, we could smell the air. We have seen similar clouds over Tucson and Phoenix and Denver, but not as thick.

Do we want our entire planet to look like that?

Regardless of how you feel politically, it seems to me that our Earth has priority now. Yes, I’ve heard the crackles and pops (very, very soft) of glacier ice. I have also seen Portage Glacier in Alaska when there was still a glacier. Sadly, pictures show that it has virtually disappeared.

I say let’s quit arguing about whether man is causing global warming and do what is necessary to preserve what atmosphere, clean water, and fertile soil that we have left.

By Robbie

May 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

A government forcing regulation upon a population is repressive. It is antithetical to freedom and eats away at out individual liberties.

Certainly there are economical ways to live a clean lifestyle. Cheverolet, for example, just released data on a new large SUV that gets the same gas milage as the Toyota Camry. Nuclear power is infinitely more efficient than coal, not to mention emmision free. Regulations have prevented the market from seeking new solutions. The regulations have hindered our growth and stifled our potential to become independent in our energy productions.

The President now finds himself in Saudi Arabia on bended knee. His pleas for an increase in production are falling on deaf ears. Our reliability on foreigners for our energy is scary, it is dangerous, and overall a threat to our national security.

Our country does not lack the resources for energy independence. Our attempts to access those resources have been met with a wall of resistance from people espousing the same, dangerous, propaganda as Al Gore. He has made believers from false data, and it is hurting our drive to achieve energy independence.

We need to scale back the regulations and open the market to produce to the consumer’s desire. The consumer, myself included, desires a clean lifestyle. We need to open exploration for new resources. We need to lift regulations on oil refineries, drilling, excavation, and transportation. We need to utilize new technologies, that cleanly, efficiently, and cheaply refine and transport energy. We will notice an almost immediate drop in energy prices. We will see an excitement in the consumer to use American sources of energy and tell the Saudis what they can do with theirs.

“Living green” is not a liberal owned idea. You do not have to preach man-made global warming to enjoy clean living and the nature God provided. Those of us that are skeptical of this dangerous “science” do not wish harm or ill-will upon the earth. Our desires are just as I explained. I want to be out from under the wing of foriegn energy. I want America to live to her potential, but she cannot so long as her own people regulate her production.

By baylorbearz

May 20, 2008 8:21 PM | Link to this

Re: the previous post — “A government forcing regulation upon a population is repressive.” Hmmm…. Might that include past regulations that initially provided clean water? Or current regulations that strive to ensure clean water flows from our tap?

What about initial regulations that provided the early infrastructure for roads & bridges, or infrastructure grids for heating/cooling our homes — and current maintenance requirements/regulations that keep bridges from collapsing, if so followed, for example?

I am grateful for governmental regulations that required my parents to send me to public schools from grades 1-12, particularly when my parents could not afford to send me to a private school — and that was in a day when there were few private schools, for that matter. I’m sure there were certain days (test days!) when I would agree with the term “repressive,” but how thankful I am for that government education regulation!

Of course, EXCESSIVE regulations can be repressive. That’s why our system of government allows citizen involvement to effect change, allowing for the push and pull to strike just the right delicate balance when regulations become too overbearing or, on the other hand, when they don’t provide enough protection for the population.

In my opinion, a blanket statement about regulations does not do justice to our history — or our future. The truth is, we live in “community” — where there is liberty and justice “for all” — not just for a single individual. That is why I respect your right to freely express your opinion. You have the liberty to do so, and I would do you an injustice to begrudge you that right. Naturally, I have the freedom to disagree. We are truly blessed.