Friday, November 27, 2009

Scare Pegs in Round Holes: The Fine Art of Global Warming

Eeeeeowwwww! It's almost like re-visiting the Colorado University UFO project.

Take the money and then do whatever you want. Preconceptions. Overlook the proper evidence. Make square pegs fit -- no, wait -- make that scare pegs fit into round holes. Memos. Written proof of ill intent. Winks and nods.

Now I understand what former VP Al Gore and President Obama mean when they say the debate over global warming is over. Apparently, they base their conclusions upon a proliferation of non-science and straw-man scenarios peddled by groups more intent upon the construction of a movie fantasy than actual facts. Critics with a science background already denounced Gore's first book and movie as seriously flawed, and he produces yet another book of . . .?
But now a new scourge upon honest inquiry pops up. Should politicians and scientists who reportedly betrayed our trust (and accepted government research funds to do so) be held accountable for misinforming the public? Are there crimes here? Will those who stand to benefit most from "green" projects involved with fat cash receive a second look as the truth unfolds?

I'm no fan of computer hackers (though, as mentioned months ago, I really think "they" should loosen up on Gary McKinnon -- while, of course, the U.S. government should explain what's up with the UFO evidence he claims to have found when he hacked into the gov), and this may actually be the work of a whistleblower, but whomever busted open 61 megabytes of confidential files and e-mails at the University of East Anglia's (England) Climate Research Unit (CRU) may have done the world an enormous favor. A wealth of documents allegedly demonstrate (in my own words) a manipulation of information, destruction of scientific data counter to preconceived notions, cooperation in fudging the facts, a campaign to resist disclosure of scientific findings which negate the CRU's dogmatic approach, conspiracy, and interpersonal communication admitting to inaccuracies in claims foisted upon the public. Yeah, allegedly.

Is the climate changing? Yes, and with or without our help it has always done so, and will continue for better or worse. Should we continue making the world greener? Yes, but at a comfortable pace. In the short term, sorry, but we need fossil fuels, and we need them more than we need the CRU's supposed distortion of facts and, for example, attempts to shove under a green rug the significance of naturally occurring planetary warming during human history's medieval period.

We must not underestimate the profound significance of the CRU story. These are the people relied upon by the United Nations and much of the world's so-called climate industry and think tanks, and it now becomes curious that every bit of misinformation passed along the rat trail simply repeats and emboldens itself, building upon alleged lie after lie until we reach a point where a treaty intent upon creating basically a one-world government (in the opinion of some) or, at the very least, sacrificing a lot of individual national control, awaits the signatures of international leaders. What sounds like science fiction at last stares us in the face, and it's all biding its time in Copenhagen as the world's elite gather in eager anticipation. After all, many billions of dollars are at stake, as international corporations and various other economic interests stand in line to steal away with whatever share they previously agreed should be theirs.

Years have passed, and the constant goal was fear, global terrorism with an identity unsuspected by many. The global warming mongers, as either shrewd, fact-twisting, wealth-acquiring geniuses or useful idiots, have gone all out to frighten schoolchildren into crying tears over a fantasy planet earth (predicted to do everything just short of catching fire), and their tactics worked equally well on university students and professors who should have known better -- alleged intellectuals who forgot that science is almost never "settled," and debate is a prime component of the scientific method.

So now these folks behind presumed lies are slowly becoming unmasked, and maybe the coast at last is clear for real scientists to come forth and explain that, indeed, carbon dioxide is our friend, that coal can be used cleanly and that "acid rain" isn't necessarily responsible for what we've been told all these years.

In the United States, every congressman who voted for "cap and trade" legislation, and every senator who still intends to do so, owes an apology to the American people for such haphazard actions. The Obama Administration, tragically, is apparently filled with like-minded people, and it remains questionable whether any of them will do anything to destroy the "carbon credit" exchange/pricing plans which now appear catastrophically bogus and whose existence may bankrupt the wealth of nations in the name of non-existent jobs or nonsense jobs or whatever labels are thrown out for the people to lap up like clueless cats at the milk bowl.

As one gazes upon the environmental dirt sure to emerge from the CRU mess, how can it not be crystal clear that governments, with the help of well-funded "scientific" institutions anxious for a never-ending money stream, sometimes go all out to lie? We currently live openly in an era of lies, the largest being the cover-up and distortion of whatever immense truth lurks behind the UFO mystery. Perhaps disclosure will creep nearer with these revelations, but don't bet your life on that.

I used to write letters and articles with an occasional warning about global warming, but somewhere along the way came to realize that planetary changes will occur despite our efforts for or against them. Then, when data emerged a year or two ago suggesting that not only earth, but Mars and other planets in our solar system were warming concurrently, well, one must consider these things. Now we learn that "global warming" ceased years ago, and a cooling cycle apparently rules the planet.

Yet, the President, publicly but surely not privately oblivious to the CRU firestorm, still intends a journey to Copenhagen, possibly intent upon passionately embracing a dangerous and, quite likely, irrelevant climate treaty based uncomfortably upon fraudulent data badly in need of meticulous peer review. Remember -- somewhere around 1,500 international scientists are said to be highly skeptical of the presumed science associated with the warming issue, and those are just the ones who dared to step cautiously forward to date, frequently in fear of their colleagues' scorn for refusing to be part of a wretched the-debate-is-over sheep herd.

But, hey, if you're the Prez and the world's toadies are going to award you a Nobel Peace Prize right after you affix your John Hancock (not to offend John Hancock's place in history, nor to offend anybody offended by the merely offensive thought of offensive United States history, which is offensive to those who are easily offended, pardon me) to a questionable phony baloney treaty, it might be worth taking the plunge, and the Nobel will obviously be a great addition to the eventual presidential library built with the help and deep appreciation of powerful industries, union bosses and their associates.

Mr. Obama's signature upon this absurd document (with or without congressional endorsement) may become a costly embarrassment for the United States, an expensive puppet show for the world, and an action that history books may record as a colossal error. He really should decline, otherwise we'll be forced to depend upon Congress and perhaps even the Supreme Court to sort out this mess. Instead, let us allow the climate debate a proper airing -- and tell anonymous puppet masters who eagerly anticipate countless billions of "green" dollars to fall into their hands via trumped-up climate legislation to go eat grass until they turn their favorite shade of green.

Under proper circumstances in connection with the CRU's hacked or whistle-blown goldmine of alleged self-incriminating deceit, we might expect global criminal charges to be filed without hesitation (in legal terms, hacking is bad but whistle-blowing can be very, very good). In the meantime, however, as always, one need only follow the lies and the money. It's just that simple.