By Tom Quiner

I’m like a lot of people: I’m a global warming agnostic. There is credible evidence that the earth is warming. But it depends on whom you listen to.

But if we assume the earth is warming, there’s a lot of disagreement on how that will affect the world. There are even credible spokesmen, like Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus, who suggest there are benefits to a warming planet, such as longer growing seasons and fewer deaths by freezing (which are far bigger issue than death by heat).

If we assume the earth is warming, there is serious disagreement on whether man caused it, and whether man can mitigate its effects in a reasonably cost-effective way.

That leads me to Climategate II. Newly hacked e-mails of scientists who are proponents of the science/religion of global warming reveal they manipulate data to promote a political agenda, not a scientific one.

They’re even willing to threaten scientists who don’t buy into their religion of global warming.

It looks pretty bad to us agnostics. We need proof of global warming. But we get the feeling we’re being conned by an Elmer Gantry type of global warming mob.

The stakes are high.

According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), taxpayers spent $106.7 BILLION dollars from 2003 to 2010 fighting climate change.

In addition, taxpayers have spent another $79 BILLION on climate change technology research and tax breaks for “green energy.” Our government has even bundled our money into foreign aid to help other countries with their “climate problems.”

Tax payers have been asked to pick up the tab on another $16.1 BILLION since 1993 in green energy subsidies. We’ve ponied up another $26 BILLION for climate change programs and activities as part of the president’s 2009 Stimulus Bill.

That’s a lot of money for something that seems more like a cause or religion than a science, especially in light of the debt crisis that grips our country.

Are we being conned? It seems that way.

Let’s put the drain on the public treasury on hold until real scientists can answer three questions definitively:

1. Is there truly a catastrophic threat to the planet from global warming?

2. If yes, what is causing it? In other words, is this just another natural cycle in the heating and cooling of our planet? Or is it caused by sunspots? Or is it caused by man?

3. If it is catastrophic and caused by man, can we do anything about it?

4 Comments

  1. rencengal60 on November 29, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Are these the cause of sunspots? Aucontraire, just the opposite. These dummies apparently don’t know that we have had no sun spots for a couple years, thus without sun spots blocking radiation, more heat has reached earth. I defy any arrogant goofball to tell me that man controls the sun. Only a liberal feels they are greater than God or whatever higher power you wish to call him/her/it. Furthermore, the sun undergoes a solar cycle every 22,000 years..and we are in such a cycle at this point in time. Can Gore really stop this? Really!!

    Again, can Gore prove that he has the ability to make this cycle stop in the middle of this mandated mother nature cycle?…why on earth do the BS liberals feel entitled to make up stuff all for the need to reach into our pocketbooks? These people have no shame, no ethics, no meaning in their lives other than being predators on the producers.

    But if you are looking to learn more, much more on the topic, I suggest you take a peek or more at Stanford’s website on all things global warming..ck it here.
    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

    You will soon learn that there is no clear consensus on the topic.
    But one thing is for sure…MOTHER NATURE has the final word.
    Personally, I recommend a book put out decades ago. The title is EARTH IN UPHEAVAL. In this book, you will learn that mother nature has a mind of her own and although mere man thinks he can outsmart her, this book provides proof that you don’t mess with mother nature..she does have the last word..and it isn’t necessarily connected to what you Mr.HuMAN do or do not do…she does have the final say..so mr Gore, take that inconvenient truth and chew it!
    And for all misogynistic religions out there, this also takes place in the human realm when you mess with women and try to control them.

  2. Kurt Johnson on November 29, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Tom,

    Even if we assume there is global warming created by human activity and that it is a bad thing, there is still a question whether it would be better to allow our government to try to engineer a solution, or leave it up to individuals to decide how to respond to the situation. It is very possible that we would do better letting people adapt to the situation rather than using the force of government to try to control climate change. Humans have been very resourceful throughout history in adapting to harsh environments. I have more faith that the voluntary actions of free individuals would result in better outcomes than the efforts of governments and those with the conceit to presume to know which outcome is best – no matter how good their intentions.

  3. Theresa Dowd on November 30, 2011 at 8:02 am

    I read an opinion in the Wall Street Journal just yesterday about this. The writer compared the climate change/global warming beliefs to religions that fizzle eventually. It was entertaining. Here’s the link…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html

  4. Paul on November 30, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Three good questions in the post.

    I believe we are being conned – big time; e.g. consider the following: Federal monies (2010 dollars) to energy sources are, per megawatt-hour, solar = $775.64; wind = $56.29; geothermal = $12.85; hydropower = $0.82; coal = $0.64; natural gas and petroleum liquids = $0.64. (source of this info is Institute for Energy Research).

    The mainstream media does not present the opinions of global warming skeptics. The media constantly report about global warming and the need for alternative energy. We are asked to believe we need alternative energy but are not given information about energy production. For example, how much, if any, coal and nuclear power use has been reduced by wind farms in IA? As an example of media bias about alternative energy, how many articles have been in the Des Moines Register about the Solyndra fiasco?

Leave a Comment