Considering the recent "doom & gloom" report issued by the White House, it seems a good time to contemplate the "global warming" agenda. Not being a scientist with fancy credentials, these thoughts won't be lofty or technical, but more a probe of the impetus behind the movement and some of its unanswered questions.
To begin with, the report - authored by governmental agencies, universities & research institutions - says that global warming is...
* "unequivocal"
* happening now
* caused primarily by humans
* effecting the entire U.S.
* worsening
* already partially irreversible
* affected by choices made today
Grave predictions are associated with this report. For example...
* More floods, tornadoes & hurricanes
* "Significant" increase in heat related deaths
* Harm to crops
* "Extreme" heat waves
* More air pollution
* Increased occurrences of wildfires
* Water shortages
* Increase in insects
* Harm to the economy
Scary stuff. But, yet some things may nevertheless be found questionable with regard to the "climate change" movement. For example:
* If "global warming" is so certain and "unequivocal", why do thousands and thousands of scientists disagree?
* If "global warming" is true, why were scientists in the recent past concerned about "global cooling" - a supposed coming "ice age"?
* "How can they predict global warming 100 years into the future when they cannot predict the temperature accurately for next weekend?"
* How can they prove that "warming" isn't normal & cyclical? How do they counter critics' claims that the supposed warming is "moderate and not unprecedented"? That these are simply normal & natural climate cycles?
* How can they prove "warming" isn't caused by natural changes with respect to the sun as some suggest?
* How can they prove their "climate models" are accurate, especially in light of the deficiencies some say exist?
* If "global warming" was caused by humans, why might certain elements be traced back to periods of history in which it would have been impossible for people to have been the cause?
* If "global warming" was true, why have "propaganda pieces", such as Gore's movie, been shown to contain "substantial inaccuracies and false claims"?
* If "global warming" is getting worse, why was one recent year noted as the "coldest year of the decade"?
* Why have the alarmists "overlooked or downplayed" benefits that some "atmospheric changes" have supposedly brought?
* Have they concretely proven (not just alleged) that mere humans - who make up only a very small part of this planet - have caused such a catastrophic impact? ("In the absence of fire, could a lone fly heat up the entire Empire State Building?") And furthermore, have they even remotely considered the planet's - like the body's - remarkable ability to "heal" itself?
* How can they prove (not just allege) that human behavior is the driving force in "global warming"? Why do critics point to the insignificance of human factors in comparison with naturally occurring factors (e.g. volcanoes)?
* How do they counter critics' charges that their "cause & effect determinations are erroneous"?
* Are some supposed effects of "global warming" - e.g. erosion - really just normal occurrences that are to be expected? Didn't they occur many times in the past - long before humans could have been "responsible for global warming"?
* How can we trust their results as "scientific" when it would have been impossible for them to accurately compare temperatures over long periods of time? Remember that reliable measurements are available only for more recent years. They obviously must have based their findings on mere "estimations and calculations" - not actual empirical data. [And, even if changes could be reliably measured over the small span of the past 50 years, this wouldn't prove that observed variations are anomalies. Perhaps such variations have occurred repeatedly over past millenniums. Without reliable measurements for the past thousands of years, we couldn't know for certain.]
Also...
* Why does some significant evidence appear to contradict their theory?
* Why does the mainstream media fail to report evidence which is contrary to the alarmists' claims?
* Why is equal press time not given to those who reject the concept of "global warming"?
* Why are alarmists' claims given a good deal of attention when they are made but when they are disproved this fact is given little or no attention?
* How can we be absolutely certain that alarmists' claims are scientifically rather than politically motivated?
* Do we really believe government can "stop" climate change?
* How can they disprove critics' claims which speak of "faulty science", "lack of evidence", "untrue claims", "misrepresentations", "a hoax", "inaccuracies", "exaggerations", "lies"? Since they make the claim of "global warming", it seems the burden of proof must rest with them.
* Is it true that some dissenting research papers have been ignored? That certain "researchers" ignore opposition? That they gloss over findings which disagree with their already held positions? That "intimidation tactics" have been used? That dissenting scientists are "afraid" to speak out because they may lose research money or be ostracized by colleagues - or have their careers ruined?
* How do they counter charges that some have a financial interest in the outcome of supposedly "scientific" findings regarding "global warming"?
* Isn't it a bit convenient that such an extreme alarmist report has come out while legislation regarding "global warming" is stalled in congress? As one person said regarding the report, "One has to hope it will influence how people think about particular legislative proposals."
* How can we be assured that this is not simply "scare tactics & fear mongering"? Alarmists point to "catastrophic changes", "an enemy threatening public health", a "state of emergency" and say there is no time for delay. And there is, of course - conveniently - no time for debate.
Ultimately, what is most scary about this movement is the effect it will likely have upon us and on our freedoms. Don't we have very good reason to fear that this is an agenda to further tax & regulate people, take away freedoms, redistribute wealth, raise prices (especially for fuel), promote abortion and euthanasia, and gain power? Isn't this some very handy "artillery" to force people to make unwanted or harmful lifestyle changes (e.g. have fewer children; drive smaller, less safe cars)? Isn't this the perfect opportunity to advance the agendas of global government and depopulation? Haven't we seen over and over again how those in power provoke fear and then profit from it? Haven't we experienced many false alarms in the past - supposed "crises" that simply vanish away without coming true? Doesn't sad experience show us that we can't blindly trust alarmists and politicians, especially those who have agendas? Don't their actions already illustrate that the "fear mongering" will eventually lead policy-makers to discover new "environmental crimes" which could result in persons being fined, sent to jail, or even (in some countries) receiving the death penalty?
Isn't it already troubling that children are being indoctrinated into accepting "global warming" as an indisputable fact? Isn't it also unnerving that everywhere we go someone tries to brainwash us into acceptance of the "global warming dogma"? Isn't it bothersome that those who don't accept "the party line" on 'global warming' are likely to be ridiculed & ostracized?
Finally, even if global warming was actually true, could we safely trust politicians to "fix" this supposed problem if they hold anti-Christian values, if they are anti-life, and if they have no qualms about "taxing us into the poorhouse"?
Again, not being a scientist and thereby not able to evaluate the highly technical arguments on their merits one may simply consider what is readily observable. If nothing else, the above point to some serious "red flags" with regard to supposed "global warming". Besides, biblically speaking, isn't it fair to say that the end of the earth will be advanced by moral sins rather than "environmental sins"? Scripture doesn't speak of the end of the earth coming due to some "impersonal" crumbling of ecosystems but rather in relation to Christ's second coming. Obviously the real end of the world won't be preventable merely by adopting "green" policies.
Lastly, it is true that there is one climate change prevention effort that IS undisputedly worth our efforts. That is preventing THE real "global warming" that we may experience after death if our souls are not saved. And the threat of this "climate change" is undeniably real. Not only that, but it is eternal, unfixable, and is the direct result of each sufferer's own actions. It is incumbent upon each of us to do all we can to avoid this "global warming". Fortunately, preventing this dreaded "climate change" requires no scientists, politicians, regulations or taxes. [6/17]
Posts
