Thoughts of an Independent mind: Students Held Hostage in a World Gone Mad

Introduction

For some time I have been collecting data on global warming, but I have not blogged on it because I thought I would leave it best to the scientists who understand the science behind it better than I. But, if the god of global warming Al Gore, can create a movie based on deception and lies, then I could at least write a piece that dispels a lot of the distortions in his movie. I decided to write this article on global warming because of events that I see happening in our schools. Global warming is happening – that we know. The debate centers on whether humans are the cause of it and if there is anything we can do about it. Global warming has become a movement. This movement has become dangerous because our politicians are enacting ineffectual populist policies which will have adverse affects on our economy, and the gullible electorate is falling for it hook, line and sinker. The liberal politicians will try every form of skullduggery until they finally succeed in enacting inane policies that will help no one but certain special interest groups. The problem is many conservatives are also falling for it. Newt Gingrich sits down with Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton sits down with Pat Robertson in Al Gore's 300 million dollar blitzkrieg ad campaign on global warming. This is a world gone mad. If I were a proponent of the global warming movement, my mission statement would probably go something like this, "Global warming is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which occur naturally, and occur by human activity. Human activity is responsible for an inordinate increase in the concentration of some of these greenhouse gases especially CO2. If we don't stop it, the world will see a rise in ocean levels, a melting of the ice shelves, an increase in the occurrence of tornadoes, an increase in famine, an increase in droughts and a whole host of other natural disasters that will put our planet in peril. We must reduce the world's emission of CO2 whatever the cost." Teachers teach this bunk because they know they have a captive audience. They use this opportunity to spread the pseudo-science and liberal agenda of global warming. In the following analysis, I will attempt to discuss the global warming agenda paying special attention to Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"

Virtually every totalitarian regime and religious cult have used brainwashing techniques in one form or another from the Nazi youth in Germany, the reeducation camps in Vietnam, to the brainwashing techniques of various cults such as the Unification Church of Sum Myung Moon. It is easy to convince the youth to certain ways of thinking because the teens of every generation are ignorant about the world around them, and ignorant of history. As Judge Judy says, "They are not fully cooked yet." The media, the politicians and agenda driven pundits have successfully brainwashed our children using teachers as their conduits. As High School Students grow older, they take with them to the universities the lies and deception that have been continuously pummeled in their half-baked minds during their four years in high school. Most of the liberal teachers who are our educators believe what they are teaching because they are a product of our public school system too. We do not teach our children how to think critically. Students of today are taught to fall in line with the movements of the day, the liberal talking points – today, it is global warming.

Schools Gone Nuts

I will be making reference to the global warming debate instead of global warming, because there is no question that the world is warming. The debate is - are humans the cause? And, if so, how much? And, can we do anything about it?

Most parents do not pay attention to what is being taught to their kids. Others tacitly agree. When my daughter comes home, I find out what her homework is, and I find out what she was taught in the classroom. In certain instances, I find myself having to tell what one teacher told her is just not true. For example, she was taught as fact that the KKK owned Marlboro, an urban legend, that was debunked a long time ago, yet until I proved it to her, she wouldn't believe me. That story didn't even make sense on the face of it. Marlboro is owned by Phillip Morris USA, a public company and investors would not touch a public company with a ten foot pole if the KKK owned any part of it.

During Spring break, my daughter's Algebra teacher gave the class an extra credit assignment over the holidays. Did it have anything to do with Math? No. The assignment was to watch CNN's four hour two segment documentary, "Planet in Peril", and to write an essay on what they thought of the documentary. At least it was an extra credit assignment, and not part of class time. But, to push this in Algebra is beyond the pale. CNN's Planet in Peril is just what it sounds like, an alarmist so-called documentary in the same vein of Al Gore's, "An Inconvenient Truth" warning us of the dangers and threats the planet faces, the majority of which deals with global warming.

I have mentored a 23 year old woman since her high school days. She is like family. She is currently at the end of her nursing program, and the other day she called me to tell me her teacher wanted the class to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and relate it to nursing. The homework was to watch this so-called documentary, and then discuss it in class. Jacque, the nursing student was taking a course in which the median age of the nursing students was the mid 30s. That night, she met with some of her colleagues and watched the documentary. The following day she discussed it with the rest of her class. The students would take turns in describing what the movie meant to them. Jacque was the last one to give her opinion, so she was able to watch the exchange between the other students and the teacher. As she sat in the class, she heard the discussion between her teacher and her other classmates. When the teacher asked what the students thought of the documentary, these preening sycophants began to fawn and swoon over the professor as each one in turn described how the movie told the truth, and the dangers we all faced because of global warming. One student noted, "I couldn't sleep at all last night thinking about what is going to happen to this world." Another said, "My boyfriend has a Prius, and he allows me to take it sometimes to save on energy." These statements droned on for some time as each student proffered his/her assent to a smiling and agreeable teacher in hopes that she would shower each one with praise. Each student described his/her newfound fears. Al Gore became the new god of the students, the god of global warming.

Some of this film is so unbelievably inaccurate it stretches the imagination (e.g.: connecting global warming with hurricane Katrina). The students became so enthralled and spellbound by the god of global warming's pearl of wisdom, their gullibility got the better of them. It is true what Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels once said that" if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

I had spoken to Jacque the previous night, because she wanted to know what to say in the class, because she thought this whole global warming thing for a nursing class was bizarre. I gave her some ideas so as not to antagonize the teacher since the teacher was the one holding the cards. I wanted her to be armed with information about some of the distortions of the documentary. After Jacque and I talked, she was ready for her class. She was the last one to speak as she gave her opinion, "I did some investigative work and discovered there is another side to the story." She continued, "Global warming is not "settled science" as Al Gore claims, but there is still a lot of debate surrounding the subject." She then referred the class to a BBC news article where a high court judge ruled that if schools chose to show the film, "An Inconvenient Truth", they must show the other side because the court found nine significant errors in the film. After Jacque finished her turn to speak, the teacher looked nonplussed, and the rest of the class just stared at Jacque with eyes glazed over and mouths gaping. The class no longer seemed to be a unified and cohesive group; the students seemed to be in a stupor. Each classmate tried to register what Jacque was saying. The class could only watch this girl in her early twenties speak of heresy, against global warming and against the god of global warming, to students who were a decade or more her senior. The nerve! The teacher did acquiesce and say, "Yes, there is another side." Oh no! – Now the teacher capitulated and admitted that someone else might have a differing opinion and a 23 year old at that. The class continued…

Settled Science?

Al Gore continues to say global warming is "settled science." Of course as soon as someone says that, beware. Al Gore equates "Global Warming Deniers" to those who deny the holocaust or to those who deny the Earth is round. His arrogance is unbelievable. Frederick Seitz of the Oregon Health Institute of Science and Medicine developed the Heidelberg Appeal that is comprised of 4,000 scientists in 106 countries including 72 Nobel Prize winners who disagree with the current global warming debate. Seitz warns against an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. The Leipzig Declaration is similar to the Heidelberg Appeal. Thus, the debate is far from settled. If a scientist disagrees with global warming, he will not be able to obtain grant money. A scientist willing to go against his/her colleagues risks being ostracized and banished from his/her field of study. Follow the money. We have returned to the Salem witch trials.

The Polar Bear

Students and teachers sucked into the global warming myth have no idea how much it is going to affect their pocket book. Politicians are trying every way to ram these asinine policies through congress regardless of the veracity of the claims. One egregious example of this is the politics of the polar bear led by the democrats and the Machiavellian Barbara Boxer. Environmental groups have been lobbying long and hard to get the Polar Bear listed as an endangered species based on one erroneous scene (which has since been debunked) in Al Gore's movie. A pair of polar bears seemed to be precariously clinging to the cliffs in danger of drowning. The Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken. Al Gore saw it and decided to use it in his film. In his "An Inconvenient Truth" states "Their habitat is melting… beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet," Of course, the polar bears were nowhere near drowning. They were near land; polar bears are perfectly capable of swimming. May 15^th is an important day – it is the court-mandated decision on whether the polar bear is an endangered species. It will be similar to the day the energy and security act of 2007 bill was passed and life with the stroke of pen became more expensive as a result of ethanol mandates. The center for biological diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit states their goal:

"Protection under the Endangered Species Act will provide concrete help to polarbears and could revolutionize American climate policy. Since U.S. resistance to curbing greenhouse gases has allowed other countries to shirk their responsibilities as well, major changes in American policy are likely to have a powerful domino effect, catalyzing change in climate policy worldwide. The polar bear's protected status will require a new level of environmental review before oil and gas development continue in polar bear habitat in the American Arctic. Even more critically, because it is illegal to harm threatened species or jeopardize their survival, the polar bear listing could mean that all U.S. industries emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases — and requiring a federal permit to do so — will come under the purview of the Endangered Species Act. From polluting power plants in the Midwest to auto manufacturers, a vast array of industries may have to clean up their acts to give the polar bear a chance to survive."

The center for biological diversity does not even attempt to mislead. The intentions of this group are spelled out in black and white. These environmental nuts want to stop drilling for oil in the arctic, and they want to control American policy and curb economic growth to reduce greenhouse emissions. They are using the polar bear for their global warming agenda.

The Polar Bear is not decreasing; it is actually increasing. Fox News states: In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.

Hugh Hewitt, a talk show host and an environmental attorney has been following the politics of the polar bear closely. If the polar bear is listed as an endangered species, it will be economic suicide.

Here is the long and short of it. The Democrats have thus far been unsuccessful in signing on to the Kyoto protocol. Using the polar bear is way to enact liberal greenhouse policies through the backdoor. If the polar bear is listed as an endangered species, the Federal Endangered Species Act, (FESA) established in 1973 is very clear. Hugh Hewitt states "Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the act." This is unprecedented, and FESA is being manipulated for the liberal's political agenda of global warming. Once listed, these environmental groups will begin to launch a myriad of lawsuits under the guise of protecting the polar bear. Environmentalists will challenge any new forms of energy production including drilling in Anwar or new power plants that produce fossil fuels. An estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Alaska's Chukchi Sea will be out of reach. Our energy policy will be in the hands of activist judges.

If the public understood what this was going to cost them in dollars and cents, they would be up in arms (liberals and conservatives). Everyone should be flooding their congressman's offices with faxes and telephone calls. The environmental wackos are doing it again, but the average Joe is unaware; he/she is just trying to make a living. The cost of living is going to skyrocket as a result of these liberal's policies. When will it end?

The hypocrisy of Al Gore.

As the death toll mounts in the tens of thousands possibly reaching or exceeding 100,000 in the Myanmar Cyclone in Burma, Al Gore uses the tragedy to advance his agenda on global warming and the release of his book "Assault on Reason" in paperback as he states:

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated, and last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

I have previously noted the hypocrisy of the Al Gore's of the world you can check it out by clicking here.

Is there any question why Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the subject?

I told Jacque the only way this world has any hope is for people like her, who don't toe the liberal line to stand up for her beliefs. This at least might plant the seed to convince these otherwise naïve and gullible students to think critically, and to search out the truth. Maybe, this way, we won't go the way of Europe and be burdened by social policies that stifle economic growth.

Inconsistencies, distortions and outright lies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and other problems with the global warming debate.

The most recent distortion in Al Gore's "schlocumentary" that even Michael Moore would be proud of was discovered on April 18, 2005. The famous shot above the Antarctic Ice Shelves was actually footage from the science fiction blockbuster, "The Day after Tomorrow." You know that movie that wiped out the planet because of global warming that apparently Al Gore thought was non-fiction. ABC news 20/20 broke the story. Al Gore refused to comment on it. When Al Gore is talking about the ice shelves, he makes the comment, "And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic." There was only one problem; it was digital footage from, "The Day after Tomorrow." The scenes were not real. Did you read that? The helicopter scenes, from the Antarctic ice shelves, were fake.

I had previously mentioned the United Kingdom's ruling on the 9 errors in the ruling. I am listing 11. I have seen one British report where it said 9, and I saw another one where it said 11. There were at least 9, but I have listed the 11 below.

A British high court judge questioned some of the claims in Al Gore's movie, and ruled that schools must show the other side. Moreover, in order for the film to be shown the guidance note to teachers must make clear that 1) the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument and 2) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. I applaud the judge's efforts in making this ruling. After the eleven inconsistencies cited by the Judge, I will follow it by other inconsistencies or outright lies. The disputed points from Newsbuster.org:

The judge disputed what he depicted as Gore's assertion that the melting of icecaps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet "in the near future."
Gore claimed that the disappearance of year-round snow from the summit of Kilimanjaro in Africa was attributable to global warming. The court was not convinced. According to the judge, the scientific "consensus" is that the reasons for the snow recession on Kilimanjaro cannot be established.
Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances-up to 60 miles-to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced by the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." I have talked about the polar bear previously.
Gore attributed at least some of the destructive power of Hurricane Katrina to rising ocean temperatures and global warming. The judge found that there was "insufficient evidence to show that."
The Gore movie depicted the drying up of Lake Chad as a prime example of the effects of global warming. Expert testimony in front of the British court suggested that "far more likely causes" were "population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability." Al Gore even suggests hurricanes will get stronger because of global warming. Dr William Gray, the foremost expert on hurricanes and head of Colorado State's tropical Meteorology project stated that "the degree to which you believe global warming is causing hurricanes is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms." In other words, Al Gore knows nothing about these storms.
Gore suggested an "exact fit" between the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperatures over a period of 650,000 years. According to the judge, scientists generally agree that there is "a connection," between the two phenomena, but claims of an "exact fit" cannot be established.
An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that citizens of some low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "have all had to evacuate to New Zealand" because of the inundation of their islands caused by global warming. The judge said that he found no evidence of "any such evacuation having yet happened."
The movie suggested that global warming could shut down "The Ocean Conveyer," a process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe. The judge cited a study by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, which concluded that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyer would be shut down completely, although it might slow.
Gore argued that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge cited the IPCC view that it was difficult to separate the impact of stresses on coral reefs caused by climate change "from other stresses such as over-fishing and pollution.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found the film to be misleading. Over that period the rises in C02 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The government's expert had to cede this was not the case.

Note: Al Gore specifically states the global warming debate is "settled science", and not political in nature. I have an experiment one should try. Have a group of people randomly selected to enter a vacant room. Have those who believe that global warming is mostly caused by human activity to move to one side, and the ones who do not believe global warming is mostly not caused by human activity to move to the other side. Then ask the liberals to raise their hands. What side of the room do you think you will see raise their hands? If it were not political, you would see hands on both sides raised, I would surmise that would not be the case.

Other problems with the documentary and global warming hysteria.

Al Gore argues that global warming is caused by C02. Scientists do agree that the earth is warming, but if C02 has anything to do with it, no one knows to what degree or even if it is possible to combat the effects. In fact, trying to combat it may do more harm than good. There may be other reasons for the warming such as solar magnetic activity and irradiance. Warming trends are also cyclical in nature. Nobody has the foggiest idea how much of this warming is due to natural phenomena.
NASA officials have admitted temperature data from NASA for the past seven years have been inaccurate. The mistake was spotted by a blogger. This shows the difficulty in trying to estimate temperature over millennia.
Al Gore presents a graph where C02 tracks the global warming trend. He stands in front of his audience with the graph as his backdrop. The two lines show 650,000 years of Antarctic ice-core. There are no numbers to even put the graph into perspective. The bottom line shows the average atmospheric temperature. Al Gore is attempting to show that C02 correlates precisely with global warming trends. There is no X axis for atmospheric content, and its baseline is not zero. The quantities on record vary between about 200 and 300 parts per million – and the baseline is about 150. Therefore, we have an exaggerated illustration of the rise and fall of C02, The temperature graph dips nearly to the bottom of the screen during some of the colder periods. This would seem to chart an Earth temperature that has descended to near the freezing point. The baseline is a chosen one. At no time has the earth's average temperature been near the freezing point. The graph of course is suppose to show the correlation that C02 is the cause of global warming, but just because C02 trends with a global warming trend doesn't necessarily mean C02 is even the cause. If you match up solar activity, it also matches up to the warming trend line. Just because you see two lines trend with each other does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. In Al Gore's graph, C02 precedes the increase in temperature. Historical records indicate that temperature increases precede C02. That is not all - Gore also uses Dr. Michael Mann's methodology "hockey stick graph, but this methodology has been attacked and criticized in peer-reviewed journals. An alternate graph by John Daily actually shows it cooler now than the Medieval Warm Period.
Mars is also warming. Should we attribute that to C02. Solar activity would make more sense.
Even if human causation of CO2 were true, Gore does not provide any solutions for the problem. Global warming alarmists are against the cleanest form of fuel that exists today, nuclear power.
Gore never mentions the 1976 regime shift Pacific Decadel oscillation, a natural ocean cycle, which is a major cause of a recent climate change in Alaska.
Gore neglects to mention that global warming can be beneficial
Gore ignores the large role of natural variability in Arctic climate, never mentioning either that Arctic temperatures during the 1930s equaled or exceeded those of the late twentieth century, or that the Arctic during the mid Holocene period was significantly warmer than it is today.
Al Gore cites a study by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, that found an overall loss in Antarctic ice mass during 2002-2005, but ignores a study by University of Professor Curt Davis and colleagues that found an overall ice mass gain during 1992-1993. Three years worth of data is too short to tell anything about a trend in a system as vast and complex as Antarctica.
Gore misrepresents the major auto companies' position in their lawsuit to overturn California's CO2 emissions law by neglecting to mention that CO2 standards are de facto fuel economy standards and that federal law prohibits states from regulating fuel economy.
Al Gore loves to talk about how the West Antarctic Shelf is receding and collapsing, but what he neglects to say is that the center of Greenland has been growing over the last decade, and the East Antarctic ice shelf is also growing.
In an article in Executive Intelligence Review appears this commentary, "In the first decades of the 20th Century, a scientific theory of climate emerged, based on the effects of three long-term cycles in the Earth's orbital relationship to the Sun. It was based on the work of the Russian-German meteorologist Vladimir Koppen (1846-1940), his son-in-law Alfred Wegener (the originator of the theory of continental drift), and the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich. Their work drew upon a 19th-Century tradition which originated with a hypothesis of the German-English astronomer John Herschel." There are also little ice ages and glacial ages.
Greenland used to be habitable and much warmer than it currently is because of the cyclical variability in the earth's atmosphere. Vikings used to live on Greenland. This was known as the Medieval Warm Period. They inhabited Greenland in the early 14th century. This was pre-CO2.
It is often pointed out that with increasing temperatures the potential area of tropical diseases such as malaria will increase, because the mosquitoes that transmit malaria ordinarily need winter temperatures above 16-18 degrees Celsius to survive. However there are species that can hibernate in sheltered sites showing the difficulty in trying to pinpoint certain problems because of global warming when there is another completely viable explanation.
Computer models – Global warming alarmists rely heavily on computer models. These computer models vary by 400%. We can't predict how the weather will be in one week yet we pretend to predict what it will be in ten years or even decades. There are all kinds of variables one has to consider, clouds, rain, water vapor etc. If one variable is changed in the slightest the entire model will be changed. This reminds me of when I had to work as an Accountant, and we created financial models to forecast financial statements for the coming fiscal year. If the controller said, "we need to increase revenue, or reduce expenses." We only had to go back, tweak a few variables, change an assumption and voila, we could arrive at the required number. Scientists need grants to study global warming. The need to arrive at certain conclusions forces them to adjust their models. They only need to change the variables or the assumptions of the model to reach their preconceived ideas, and the money will continue to flow in.
We don't know about 75% of the factors that scientists believe cause global warming.
Even if global warming by human activity were a fact, mankind has an inherent ability to adapt. This is not considered in any of the doomsday scenarios. Man does and will adapt.

Questions that still need to be asked on global warming.
How much effect does C02 have on the temperature? The important question is not whether the climate is affected by humans, but to what degree.
Could there be other causes behind the increasing temperature such as solar activity? If there are other reasons, it means that global warming becomes less important because humans are not the cause, and there isn't much we can do about it.
Are the greenhouse scenarios reasonable? Are these predictions based on reasonable assumptions? If not, then what? How do we know what is reasonable?
What are the consequences of a possible temperature increase? Temperature increases may not necessarily be a bad thing.
What are the costs of decreasing versus not decreasing CO2 emissions? If we are to make an informed decision on global warming we need to know the costs of not acting versus the cost of acting. If we totally disrupt our economy with no effect on CO2, what is the point? The cap and trade schemes in Europe have been completely ineffectual, and their CO2 has actually increased after implementing their cap and trade schemes.
Before relying on computer models and making policies that will be hugely expensive, we should use these models for a period of up to a decade at least before we know if these models work.
What about volcanoes? Wetlands? Volcanoes do have an effect on CO2, and natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

We have had hundreds of years of false alarms about the paucity of food supplies, overpopulation, etc and all for naught. I am left to think about groups that have followed cultish leaders who believed the world was coming to an end and by some tragic means killed themselves and their children because the followers became gullible to the point that they became absorbed in the lies and deceptions of their leaders. Groups that come to mind are Jim Jones of the People's Temple in Guyana and Heaven's Gate. Walter E. Williams enumerates some of the falsehoods in erstwhile years that people would rather forget because in the end, the claims were just plain wrong.

A few dire predictions from the Ellis County Press May 7 2008 by Walter E Williams, professor of Economics at George Mason University with my own commentary in italics.

It's not just latter day doomsayers that have been wrong, doomsayers have always been wrong:

1969 – First Earth Day – printed in Newsweek article April 28, 1975. Newsweek portended ominous signs of a decline in food production, and other disastrous events because of global cooling. CC Wallen, the head of the World meteorological organization equated the dangers of this new ice age to the dangers of a nuclear war. (sound familiar?)
1968 – Professor Erlich – predicted there would be a major food shortage, and in the 1970s hundreds of millions would die from massive starvation. His predictions on England were gloomier. He predicted England would not exist in the year 2000. The world fell for it. In fact, the reverse is true. Declining birth rates are a huge problem. To sustain a population at its current level, a woman needs to give birth to 2.1 persons. This is about where the U.S is today, but Europe (not counting the Islamic population) is less than 2 per woman. Europe is in decline. They cannot even afford to sustain their social programs. Muslims in Europe produce about 7 to 1. Europe will become Islamisized if they do not change their immigration policies. Russia is losing entire cities because of their declining populations. China is having detrimental effects because of their one child policy. Food is a problem because of politics. The recent food riots are not because of food shortages, but they are due to the idiotic liberal policies of ethanol mandates which is increasing the price of food which affects mostly the poor and third world countries. If you stick your food in a gas tank, prices are going to go up. Who can't figure that one out?
1972 – a report was written for the club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981. Gold was an especially important commodity in 1972 because it was not until 1973 that the U.S. dollar was taken off the Gold Standard.
1970 – Senator Gaylord Nelson said in his book "The Doomsday Book" that Americans were using 50% of the world's resources, and by 2000 they will have used all of them.
1970 – Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
1885 – The U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California and a few years later they said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. Imagine if the geologists held on to that theory.
1949 – The Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. We still hear that today. In fact, new oil deposits have been discovered in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Russia and other places. I cannot mention the United States because we just sit on our hands and play tiddly-winks since the so-called environmentalists have succeeded in stopping the U.S in drilling anywhere.
1974 – Having forgotten about their previous erroneous claim, The U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a ten year supply of natural gas. The American gas association says there is a 1,000 to a 2,500 year supply of natural gas.

The problem with these predictions is that they gather media attention, and the media repeats them so often that these beliefs become mainstream, and the schools, the students, the teachers, and soon the world believe the predictions. Congress begins to react and enact populist policies that impede economic growth and put us behind other countries, and take jobs overseas.

Conclusion

Global warming has been a political tool to implement liberal policies. Global warming is not about truth; it is about advancing a cause. The "Science is settled" states Al Gore, except scientists who disagree with Al Gore's global warming hypothesis are coming through the woodwork. Al Gore and the Democratic elites have to silence them if they want to continue to advance their cause, but it's like trying to plug a sieve. When they are unable to advance the movement, global warming alarmists try to propagate their dogma through the backdoor by finding ways to enact their policies such as listing as an endangered species, the polar bear. I have barely touched the surface of the problems with the global warming debate. No one has the foggiest notion how much human activity has to do with global warming if any yet the politicians do not care. They continue trying to enforce their agenda with such zeal that we face adverse economic and social upheaval if these policies are ever implemented. We have already seen it with the MTBE fiasco, the ethanol mess and now global warming. May 15^th will be the first step in the global warming direction if the polar bear is put on the endangered species list. These alarmists even equate the "global warming" danger with the terrorism threat. We need sound politicians who use sound science. Politics and science do not mix. Science in today's environment is guided by politics, and this is a dangerous precedent.

The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of the earth; therefore we should all be environmentalists. However, the environmentalists of today have become a political movement to advance their Marxist-socialist agenda. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, left Greenpeace because Greenpeace has become politicized to the far-left. Greenpeace has become a movement whose only concern is in advancing a political agenda. The slug underneath some rock in some God-forsaken wasteland has become more important than the human who lives next to the slug. Corporations are evil; socialism is good. We do need to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil, but the environmentalists have effectively prevented us from drilling on our own land. Forbes magazine just published in their May 19, 2008 publication that the outer continental U.S. shelf contains 100 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, but 85% is off limits by congressional decree. We have 1.5 trillion barrels that Shell estimates trapped in the oil shell deposits in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. We have oil in Colorado's Denver Julesburg basin. The Bakken formation in Western North Dakota may hold up to 400 billion to 500 billion barrels of oil. The arctic refuge, a pin-prick of a waste land, is estimated to have 16 billion barrels of oil. We should also begin building refineries, and then begin building nuclear reactors. We should scrap the ethanol program, and research other alternative fuels we know will work like natural gas. If we do this, we don't have to worry about cap and trade schemes, oil windfall taxes, and other ill-conceived ideas that won't work. Going this route will take us off Middle Eastern oil, make us energy independent and make for a cleaner environment. Everyone will be happy. It won't happen overnight, because we have sat on our hands for too long. From what I hear from our current crop of presidential candidates, I don't hear what is necessary to get the job done. McCain is the closest, but he still doesn't want to drill in Anwar, and he wants to impose cap and trade schemes. Hillary and Obama will just continue to sell us down the river. I hope we do what is right, and not what is politically expedient, but so far it is not looking good.

Sources:

Newsweek May 5, 2008

State of Fear, 2004 Michael Crichton

The skeptical Environmentalist Measuring the real state of the world, Bjorn Lomborg

The Ellis County Press May 7, 2008

http://www.Newsbuster.org

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411

Forbes Magazine May 18, 2008

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3315greenland_ice.html