Op-Ed: Is Global Warming A Science, Theory, Religion Or Power Grab?

Posted Apr 18, 2008 by Johnny Simpson
President Bush is only the latest to hop onto the Global Warming bandwagon. But what is Global Warming? Is it an accurate scientific portent of a rapidly approaching climactic Apocalype? Or a massive Socialist shakedown of profitable capitalist societies?
US Troops Raise Green Flag On Iwo Jima
US Troops Raise Green Flag On Iwo Jima
Time Magazine
DISCLAIMER: I hereby state for the record that I am NOT an employee or hired gun of ExxonMobil, Big Oil or Republicans Who Cannot Destroy The Environment Fast Enough. This is how low we have sunk in the debate, if it can be called such.
Personally, I like to think of myself as the paler version of Sojourner Truth. And if we are all going to be taxed half to death, or have such flagrant intrusive measures as the state remotely controlling our thermostats, isn't that what we ALL should be looking for before we just jump into the stifling financial and regulatory abyss that awaits us? The Truth?
The debate over the 'science' of Global Warming, or 'Climate Change' as it is more frequently called now (which conveniently allows for ANY change in climate, such as our recent brutally cold winter, to be attributed to Global Warming) is rapidly descending from the scientific arena to those of regulation and taxation as though it were fact.
The question you have to ask is, how solid a science is it? Is it up there with the Table of Elements and biochemistry? Or is it merely theoretical hypothesis, like predicting the hurricane season, next week's weather, or even the nascent 'science' of climatology itself?
From my own personal observations and research on the subject (in addition to my three years in the Western Pacific as a Navy oceanographic and meteorological technician, NEC 1413), I don't believe that the science is solid enough to justify taxing and regulating ourselves back into the Stone Age.
There are way too many variables that have a far greater impact than man: volcanic eruptions, solar flares and even cosmic rays. And Global Warming proponents are not without their own glaring hypocrisies or financial and political conflicts of interest, as I will soon highlight.
Remember also that it was many of these same 'experts' who predicted not thirty years ago that we would all be buried by now under the glaciers of a new Ice Age.
The most troubling aspect of the Global Warming debate is that renowned scientific authorities who dissent from the mainstream view of GW (as held so dearly by the tree-slaughtering Time Magazine), are quickly branded as heretics, deniers or hired guns of Big Oil (as I'm sure I soon will be), and it has cost many their jobs.
This is not only reminiscent of the Catholic Church's persecutions of Galileo and Copernicus, it conveniently covers up the fact that the Global Warming industry itself has bestowed upon many of its main players great wealth, influence, major accolades and considerable political power. If Global Warming goes away, so do all their fat foundation and federal grant checks, not to mention their cushy political jobs.
If history has taught us anything, it's that politics and dicey populist scientific theories don't mix.
Let us look, for example, at the burgeoning Carbon Credit 'industry.' This works on the premise that Company A, which under-pollutes beneath a set ceiling of 100,000 tons of emissions, may sell those credits to Company B, which can now over-pollute above the set ceiling by 100,000 tons.
I see no net gain for the environment there, but plenty for carbon credit salesmen like former vice president Al Gore, who can also conveniently purchase credits from himself to justify using twenty times the electricity the average American homeowner uses.
Will Al Gore's thermostats ever be remotely regulated should such a law pass? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Also, it appears that some of the cures may turn out to be worse than the alleged disease. The new 'green' fluorescent lights bulbs scheduled by an Act of Congress to take the place of the incandescents we all use now have their own environmental issues, such as their mercury content. And the Ethanol industry is under attack for exacerbating the worldwide food crisis.
In addition, third world countries which so desperately need coal and oil energy to develop sufficiently to be self-sustaining and even profitable economies, are now being denied those options by all-knowing UN bureaucrats.
So they are the first in the name of Global Warming to be told to live in the dark. Are we all that far behind, really?
This is all not to say that we shouldn't act to reduce man's environmental and other impacts on the earth's biosphere. I am not James Watt, who declared that we should strip-mine and drill in our federal preserves because the Second Coming of the Lord is nigh.
I am all for recycIing, hybrids, renewable and alternative energies and other solutions, as long as they don't cause more problems or discomfort than existing technologies. But we MUST weigh the balance between technological development and our quality of life against being crushed into oblivion under an avalanche of draconian taxes and regulations that may not be necessary, and will never be repealed no matter how much planetary temperatures or CO2 levels drop.
By then, too many livelihoods, bureaucracies and 'industries' like carbon credits would be too dependent upon it. As Max Weber so famously stated, "the purpose of a bureacracy is to perpetuate itself." When was the last time you ever saw one voluntarily dismantle itself because its overlords thought it was no longer necessary? We couldn't have people losing all those GW jobs just because the earth is icing over now, could we?
I do not claim to be an expert. I can only go on what I know and have learned. Nor am I unbiased on the subject, due to my unrelenting suspicion of those who have too much of a personal, financial or political stake in taxing and regulating us back into caves.
The fact is, we all have a stake in this with respect to our finances and our freedoms to make our own individual choices, and not have petty tyrannical government bureaucrats dictating to us whether or when we can flip on a light switch, or turn up a thermostat because our kids have the flu.
As always, I welcome comments, analyses and even clever insults. Most welcome are any comments or observations by scientists in the field, no matter which side of the Global Warming aisle they're on.
What I will pay absolutely no mind to are moronic accusations or insults to my intelligence by FLDS-like Global Warming True Believers, or discussions of Arctic ice core samples by Liberal Arts grads whose only real scientific knowledge and experience with Global Warming is getting a sunburn.