The Politics of Global Warming
From the beginning, I have had personal reasons to believe that Global Warming was politics and not real science.
While researching other things on the internet, occasions
to read about Global Warming set in my mind that science actually undermines
the lie of Global Warming. The founder
of the Weather Channel published an article examining the science behind
historical temperature trends. Comparison of carbon dioxide charts with
the temperature showed no correlation.
Although correlation can be seen clearly in graphs, as a mathematical
analysis tool it can detect patterns of relationship even in the presence of
noise that would obscure its visibility.
Both variables certainly varied, but not in the same manner. Comparison with charts of solar activity
however, demonstrated visibly, unobscured by any noise, that recent warmer
weather correlated to a normal variation in an 11-year solar cycle. A physicist in the military came out in
support of the same scientific conclusion.
His later retraction of the same, without explanation, smells of
submission to political pressure.
Could it be a coincidence that the Democrats had just gained control
of Congress? Even scientists on the
side of Global Warming have had their reservations. Predictions of ocean rises in the hundreds
of feet failed in their minds on further thought. Arctic Ice, whose melting would cause such
a catastrophe, on further reflection could only contribute 4% of their volume
and mass to such a rise. Because water
only expands 4% on freezing, floating ice only protrudes above the ocean by
this amount. After they thought on
these things they revised their ocean rise predictions to 14 inches. Normal tides represent a bigger change than
this. The period immediately following
What are the politics? First, scientific research costs millions and billions of dollars. It is casually obvious that politics is involved in anything costing that much money whether it comes from the government or a private source in spite of protestations of objectivity. Many parties have many different, related, unrelated, and even conflicting motives for an agenda of this scope and magnitude. Because Global Warming was at first a pretext for radical environmental measures, I think energy dependency on those hate our country has married environmentalism with the oil business. It is no wonder that one of Global Warming’s most outspoken advocates is both an ardent environmentalist and one with close ties to Occidental Petroleum. Al Gore also conveniently gets $100,000 for each speech he is hired to give on the subject. I am certain this is welcome income for someone recently closed out of an income in politics itself. Globalists, too, would favor any measure requiring international cooperation in order to continue to install global political infrastructure. It also becomes convenient politically as an explanation for the bizarre weather we have had since the mid-1990’s. I had long believed myself that at least some of the weather was man-made somehow. I have also long been angered at the blaming of God and His people for weather He did not cause. I heard talk of things people intended to do in this line, saw the results, and even found documentation of their interest in such things. More recently, I have found reason to believe other factors are also behind this weather. Some with academic credentials commented on the internet that they observed that hot spots on the earth preceded every natural disaster. They said:
We arrived at the association of natural disasters and local hot
spots by an astute observation by one of the team members. The chaotic
popping up of hot spots around the country looked spurious, until one person
asked at the 93-94 hotspot in
I set my mind also, to verify this observation if at all
possible. Articles, written around
That the perpetrators of this hoax have the masses running after a lie is what angers me the most. Some may argue the expediency of their concerns, but lies have consequences. Solutions arising from the lie will be limited to only those that do not expose it. In particular consider the following scripture.
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. (Rev 6:6)
This scripture could refer to difficult political choices pertaining to dividing agricultural resources between food and energy production, the wheat and barley being allocated to food, and oil and wine to biofuels. A radical environmentalist energy policy excluding undesirable but plentiful energy sources such as coal could produce such a dilemma.
Who is in charge of this circus? See Power Rules
 Britannica Encyclopedia 2002 – article “Stefan-Boltzmann Law”
 The word hotspot in this citation has no clear antecedent. As such, I interpreted it in context of its association with natural disaster as if the subject were an accidental discovery interjected out of context to the topic of the article.