Global Warming: the founding of a new religion
by Dirk Vander Ploeg
Posted: 19:30 March 27, 2007
I have had an ongoing debate, for many years, with my brother's girlfriend Jess, about global warming. We both admit that it exists but differ as to its causes.
I am an advocate and agree with Rush Limbaugh and other conservative thinkers, that global warming is caused in great part by the sun and solar flares. I do not believe that mankind is the sole or primary cause of planet warming. The Industrial Age, including the invention of the combustion engine and the deforestation of the rainforests certainly haven't helped the situation. But to blame modern civilization and its incredible advances in technology, science and medicine is tantamount to squeezing us into Professor Peabody's "Way Back Machine" and landing us back in the 17th century!
The earth is a living organism, new age proponents call our planet Gaia (Neo-Pagan veneration of Gaia as a living earth goddess), and just like your obnoxious neighbour or workmate, belches out gases and exhibits rude behaviour. Volcanoes, earthquakes and forest fires and gases released by all of the earth's living creatures account for the vast majority of the earth's carbon monoxide which is the primary cause of global warming.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has discovered that Mars and Earth have something in common: global warming! Data obtained in 2005 from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. The head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, Habibullo Abdussamatov, states that the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
He believes that changes in the sun's rising temperatures or heat output are responsible for most climate changes on both planets. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," he added. 1
Yet, as a result of the movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth", "The Day After Tomorrow" and pro global warming journalists and columnists the consensus for global warming is spreading and being adopted by people worldwide.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, there is a real shift occurring in the U.S. public consciousness:
Close to two-thirds (63%) of Americans agree that our country "is in as much danger from environmental hazards such as air pollution and global warming as it is from terrorists." The percentage of Americans who say global warming is a serious problem has risen to 83% from 70% in 2004. More than two out of three (68%) Americans agree that global warming is something people can control. And fully 81% agree with the statement, "It is my responsibility to help reduce the impacts of global warming." - 62% of Americans agree that we need more laws to enforce energy efficiency. - 87% agree that they look for new ways to save energy. - 90% adjust the temperature in their house to save energy. - Just 27% agree that "the need to conserve energy is exaggerated." Two of three Americans (67%) say that, if they had to, they could explain global warming or climate change "to someone I meet in passing."2
But what if mankind isn't responsible for the melting icecaps and the drowning polar bears? What if Al Gore and his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" greatly exaggerate the scientific facts of global warming? Mr. Gore states, with utmost certainty, that if conditions don't immediately improve, and if the United States and other nations do not agree by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol then all is lost. He predicts that ocean levels will rise 20 feet in the next century and destroy all coastline cities. But, in a 2005 joint statement by the science academies of the Western nations, including the National Academy of Sciences, estimates sea levels will rise four to 35 inches in the 21st century. Most scientists agree that even this estimate is based on a consensus of scientist not provable science. 3
School children are being shown Mr. Gore's movie in their classrooms and are returning home suffering from trauma with tear-swelled eyes after witnessing melting icebergs and drowning polar bears. They are being taught that soon polar bears will become extinct and that it's all our fault!
According to National Geographic polar bears have been spotted on sea ice hundreds of miles from shore. So children, polar bears can swim and they can swim for a long time and swim a long way. 4
Recently a study of animals in Canada's eastern Arctic showed that the actual numbers of polar bears was growing, not declining, as a result of mankind's interference in the environment. The study was from a survey of the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, which calculated the polar bear population has increased from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today. "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals. His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.5
Getting back to consensus, best selling novelist Michael Crichton writes, "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." 6
Evidence exists that earth regularly experiences climate changes. Coral reefs and tropical foliage found in the Artic prove catastrophic disasters have happened suddenly before. Other earth changes have been observed, such as the Northern Tundra shrinking and Alaska and Canada growing warmer. Alaska's formerly frozen soil is disappearing resulting in the loss of buildings and coastal fishing villages. Glacial ice is also receding in the Alps and the Artic and Antarctica ice are melting. 7
Global warming activists suggest that to deny that mankind isn't responsible for the increase in rising earth temperatures is equal to denying the holocaust . In her column, Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, compares people who have doubts about the global-warming crisis with people who deny the Holocaust.8
As more people continue to be educated on the global warming issue, activists of the cause are becoming embittered and are seeking methods to retaliate. One such method they support would be to hold Nuremberg type trials to prosecute those who disagree with them.9
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said in written testimony that global warming has turned into a religion that has replaced the ideology of communism and threatens basic freedoms. Mr. Klaus said the push to curb greenhouse gases would hurt poorer nations that can't afford modern technology. He compares radical environmentalists to Marxists, and says initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol require enormous costs without any realistic prospect for success.10
Are we being programmed; sold a "bill of goods" concerning earth changes and global warming, and if we are, who is responsible for the propaganda and what is their end game? Can it be as simple as differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties: liberals versus conservatives?
The debate concerning global warming is reaching critical mass. Proponents exaggerate claims and demonize opponents to their theology. They are recruiting the children of the earth as their ambassadors. Their rhetoric spreads disinformation, causes political polarization and is planting the seeds for religious and ideological revolution. Is this a primal revival of some basis instinct inherent in all humans, or is this a fabricated theory orchestrated by an unseen hand for an unknown purpose? |
