Using the Global Warming Hoax to Destroy America

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CARUBA040815When Pres­i­dent Oba­ma announced on March 31 that he intends to ensure that the U.S. will slash its “green­house gas emis­sions” 26% below 2005 emis­sions lev­els by 2025 in order to keep pledges made to ful­fill the U.N. Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change, he failed to men­tion that such lev­els would be com­pa­ra­ble to what they were in our Civ­il War era, 150 years ago.

He also failed to men­tion that the U.S. has made no such pledges as regards the 1992 “Kyoto Treaty” which was resound­ing­ly reject­ed by the U.S. Sen­ate when then Vice Pres­i­dent Al Gore brought it back from the U.N. conference.

There is no need, glob­al­ly or nation­al­ly, to reduce such emis­sions. It would be a crime against human­i­ty, espe­cial­ly for the mil­lions that would be denied elec­tri­cal pow­er or would see its cost rise expo­nen­tial­ly. “The Pres­i­dent has no cred­i­ble evi­dence to back up his claims,” said H. Ster­ling Bur­nett, a Research Fel­low with the free mar­ket think tank, The Heart­land Insti­tute. “Obama’s cli­mate actions are like­ly to cause far more harm to peo­ple, espe­cial­ly the poor, than any pur­port­ed threats from glob­al warming.”

Glob­al warm­ing” and “cli­mate change” are attrib­uted to the use of fos­sil fuels to man­u­fac­ture and trans­port our­selves and our goods, and to cre­ate elec­tri­cal ener­gy, despite the fact that the Earth, its oceans and land areas nat­u­ral­ly gen­er­ate such gases.

Human con­tri­bu­tion pales in com­par­i­son to volcanoes

There are, for exam­ple, more than 1500 poten­tial­ly active vol­ca­noes and count­less oth­ers under the oceans. They pro­duce bil­lions of tons of car­bon diox­ide (CO2) and oth­er gas­es that are iden­ti­fied as “green­house gas emis­sions.” The human con­tri­bu­tion pales in com­par­i­son to nat­ur­al sources such as the warm­ing ocean sur­face which releas­es CO2.

Even so, CO2 con­sti­tutes a mere 0.04% of the atmos­phere. There is no evi­dence CO2 plays any role in the Earth’s glob­al temperature.

Do these “green­house gas emis­sions” trap heat? Appar­ent­ly not because the Earth has been in a nat­ur­al cool­ing cycle for the past eigh­teen years break­ing and mak­ing records for snow and ice. In the 1970s sci­en­tists were pre­dict­ing a new Ice Age. Ten years lat­er they were pre­dict­ing “glob­al warming.”

Why then is the Pres­i­dent intent on slash­ing “green­house gas emis­sions” when (1) the Earth is not a green­house and (2) doing so would harm our econ­o­my for decades to come?

The answer lies in his promise to “fun­da­men­tal­ly trans­form” a nation that does not need trans­for­ma­tion except for the reduc­tion of the size and scope of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Its eco­nom­ic sys­tem is the best in the world. Its mil­i­tary is the strongest. Its agri­cul­ture feeds Amer­i­cans and is export­ed to oth­er nations.

As David Roth­bard, the pres­i­dent and co-founder of the Com­mit­tee for a Con­struc­tive Tomor­row (CFACT), a free mar­ket think tank, not­ed in the wake of Obama’s announce­ment, “The Pres­i­dent will have to bypass the law-mak­ing process and use exec­u­tive orders and reg­u­la­tions” to achieve his goal of slash­ing emis­sions. “To do so requires tor­tured read­ings of the Clean Air Act and oth­er cur­rent laws.”

Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, “the Pres­i­dent offers no suit­able replace­ment for the lost gen­er­at­ing capac­i­ty beyond point­ing toward wind and solar which is not up to the task.” When Oba­ma took office, coal-fired plants pro­vid­ed 50% of U.S. elec­tric­i­ty. It is now down to 40% and head­ed low­er if Oba­ma has his way.

Roth­bard warns that “Glob­al warm­ing cam­paign­ers see this pres­i­den­cy and the Paris U.N. Sum­mit as the best chance they are like­ly to see to take con­trol of Amer­i­can ener­gy. The ram­i­fi­ca­tions are dis­as­trous for Amer­i­can free­dom and prosperity.”

This brings us to the what John L. Casey, founder of the Space and Sci­ence Research Cor­po­ra­tion, (SSRC), an inde­pen­dent sci­en­tif­ic research orga­ni­za­tion in Orlan­do, says about the forth­com­ing Novem­ber 30 to Decem­ber 15 U.N. cli­mate con­fer­ence in Paris which he describes as “doomed” and that’s the good news.

Its announced goal of impos­ing glob­al lim­its on green­house gas emis­sions will not be manda­to­ry and “Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has effec­tive­ly gut­ted any mean­ing­ful agree­ment among the major indus­tri­al­ized nations, by hav­ing grant­ed to the planet’s largest CO2 pro­duc­er, Chi­na, free license to build as many coal pow­er plants as they wish, and emit as many giga­tons of green­house gas­es as they wish until 2030.”

This is, in fact, a glob­al trend as many devel­op­ing nations such as India do the same thing. Nor will they sud­den­ly shut down elec­tric­i­ty pro­duc­tion fif­teen years from now.

Oba­ma doesn’t want to “trans­form” Amer­i­ca. He wants to destroy it

This huge, inter­na­tion­al farce for­mer­ly known as the U.N. Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change, began as an inter­na­tion­al treaty cre­at­ed in 1992. The U.S. Sen­ate refused to rat­i­fy the Kyoto Treaty, but pledges to reduce green­house gas­es were made by 33 out of 195 coun­tries, called their “Intend­ed Nation­al Deter­mined Con­tri­bu­tion” are the main fea­ture at the forth­com­ing Paris conference.

For all the media atten­tion the Pres­i­dent will try to gen­er­ate for this idio­cy, Ken Haa­pala, pres­i­dent of the Sci­ence and Envi­ron­men­tal Pol­i­cy Project, says “It is unlike­ly that the cur­rent Sen­ate would approve a bind­ing agree­ment.”  Haa­pala notes that law­mak­ers that include the Sen­ate Major­i­ty Leader, Mitch McConnell (R‑KY), Sen. James Inhofe (R‑OK)m and Rep. Lamar Smith (R‑TX), “have all insist­ed that the inter­na­tion­al agree­ment the U.N. is work­ing on is a treaty and can­not be enforced with­out Sen­ate approval.”

Sen. McConnell warned, “Con­sid­er­ing that two-thirds of the U.S. Fed­er­al gov­ern­ment hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Pow­er Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our inter­na­tion­al part­ners should pro­ceed with cau­tion before enter­ing into a bind­ing, unat­tain­able deal.”

While most Amer­i­cans have con­clud­ed that “glob­al warm­ing” or “cli­mate change” are low on their list of fears Pres­i­dent Oba­ma has ele­vat­ed this hoax to the top of his agen­da for his last two years in office, along with the deal that would give Iran the oppor­tu­ni­ty to build a nuclear arse­nal of weapons.

He doesn’t want to “trans­form” Amer­i­ca. He wants to destroy it.