The main problem with the Global Warming argument is fairness in reporting. Any argument requires facts from the proponent and opponent, presented in heated debate, with the final victory decides in the mind of the observer. A one sided argument, does not an argument make. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are today with the agents of importance using their bully pulpit to decide the direction of the discussion. Anyone in disagreement is summarily disposed.
I for one, can not do the opponent argument justice, others are exceptionally more qualified. Of course, those sources are usually buried under the torrent of proponent commentary, making the sourcing for such information difficult to discover. This is where this article can help with the listing of sources beneficial to anyone’s expanded education on the topic at hand.
But before we do that, let me express a couple thought about common sense. All of us watch politicians and observe the use of their power to benefit themselves. We know in our heart that an honest politician is difficult to come by. We know they tow the party line and the people be damned in their quest for extended power. When a politician is infused with the mindset of a communist or socialist, the endgame goal of control, wealth, power and authority supersedes any well being for the people. Welcome to the world of the United Nations.
Karl Marx wrote that democratic capitalist regimes could not change unless faced with a crisis, which in turn is used by the leftist to alter the perspective of the people. Saul Alinksy and his followers expanded on the idea with the Cloward-Piven Strategy, whereby a crisis is manufactured. And the dupes of all dupes, the Media, play their hand unbeknowningly in their quest for sensationalistic journalism. This leave us with a detrimental situation, where an activist organization(s) can delivery propaganda in the form of a news briefing, picked up by the media tingling with the excitement of reporting a catastrophe all with the hopes of expanded their ratings (source of power and wealth).
Unfortunately, that “organization” is the IPCC. Its power is paramount in the world of Global Warming dogma. Its priest and clerics preach from the televised soap box the word according to science, supposedly. It controls the sources and methods of its scriptures and excommunicates the fallen brethren who no longer follow the holy writs. And it does this with money. $32 Billion, and that is just the United States. Citigroup is promising another $50 Billion. The IPCC wants the total research dollars raised to $60 Billion a year from the world’s governments. The life blood on any research scientist is the sourcing of grants and other funds to conduct their experimentations. Without it, they starve or the collegiate enterprise in which they work suffers bankruptcy.
But scientists are not inherently an evil people, quite the contrary. However, the availability of funds from a source predicting the outcome of their studies before they are actually conducted leaves the scientist in a precarious position. If they find empirical evidence that the opposite is true and the funds will more then likely dry up, what do you do? If you present your findings and are resoundingly criticized to the extent you are blackballed from any further research grants, especially since you are paid behind the scenes by some “nefarious source”, what do you do? Survival is human nature and providing for your family is a tenet of survival. You know what they will do. An honest scientist will neuter the conclusion, making an innocuous statement that can be taken in any direction a determined politician wants, while at the same time providing the opposition the fodder for criticism, without exposing themselves to the suffrage of the argument. Those who seek power and fame however...
The good news is, eventually someone stands up, takes the slings and arrows of the ruling pundits, bleeds upon the alter like William Wallace and gives voice to the opposition. It emboldens the people (scientist) and allows the slow discovery of the alternate and sequestered data. Like a boulder rolling down hill, once it starts it picks up momentum. As of today, the Petition Project has gathered the signatures of 31,000 scientist (9,000 with Phd’s) to counter the accepted consensus argument that is expressed by the devote 2,500 scientists in the IPCC chapel. More and more scientists are speaking out, particularly the actual examiners of the IPCC studies, who testify to the deprived process of discovery within the halls of the Global Climate Change inner circle of bishops.
Its time to educate yourself. Its time to learn the truth of the opposing argument. Its time to stand up and present yourself before the acolytes trolling the social media sites of the internet, the coffee shops and cafes, the street corner bakery or anywhere else this “man-made” crisis has spread. But as I said earlier, you need the resources. So here you go:
List of Opposition (Denier) Scientist:
Top Videos on YouTube:
Peer Reviewed Studies: (the proponents claim none of these studies exist)
Blogger Developed Education Material:
Why Rising Temperatures are Good!:
And Lastly, I love this study. It shows that to effect global warming reversal we need to reduce CO2 emission to zero. Yup, zero. That means everyone needs to stop breathing and duct tape the posteriors of every animal on the planet. Even then it would be above zero.
In response to: Obama can change the path of Climate Change