Loosing Our Souls to Save the Planet

By: Mr. Curmudgeon
mrcurmudgeon@inthepublicsquare.com

In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt declared the Grand Canyon a National Monument. That same year, in the skies above the Tunguska region of Russian Siberia, an asteroid or comet fragment detonated with an explosive force of five megatons of TNT, felling 80-million trees and devastating an area of nearly 1,000-square-miles. The former represented an early attempt by an American politician to “save the planet,” while the later underscored the reality that preserving the planet “as is” is both impossible and unnatural.

President Bush recently paid homage to the pagan gods of the environment by declaring 775,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean the newest National Monument. In his statement to the press, Mr. Bush said:

President [Theodore] Roosevelt left office with many achievements, and the most enduring of all was his commitment to conservation. As he once said: "Of all the questions which can come before the nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.

Mr. Bush then went on to list the many environmental initiatives that proved – as if any proof was needed –his Republican administration could act in as foolish a manner as any Democratic administration.

Television commercials now warn the public of the polar bear’s impending doom, due to an imaginary decrease in polar ice. With the pervasiveness of today’s eco-dementia pandemic, it’s only a matter of time before the cold predatory mammals of Hamas are declared an endangered species by a unanimous U.N. resolution.

The Age of Gaia has supplanted the Age of Aquarius; and no politician, not even a self-described conservative, is beyond the Earth Goddess’ sceptred sway. In a time of global war with Islamic totalitarianism and economic collapse, nothing has captured the limited imagination of the average American quite like saving the planet – even at the expense of saving his civilization.

The next time you’re in a conversation around the office water cooler or your poor child is forced to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” in the classroom; you can be the fly in the ointment by asking those within earshot if they’ve ever heard of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). 

Most will probably say no and ask, “what does that have to do with global warming?” The answer, you can say, is that PDO has nothing to do with global warming at all. In fact, it has everything to do with the Earth’s entry into a 30-year global cooling trend.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a weather pattern that shifts due to cooling or warming of the north Pacific’s waters, lasting for a period of 20 to 30-years. It occurs above 20-degrees north Latitude. Although scientists are unsure as to the cause of this shifting in water temperatures, satellite data collected by NASA indicates that the Earth’s cooling trend, which began in 2008, is expected to continue.

A NASA statement reads as follows:

…According to Nathan Mantua of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, Seattle, whose research contributed to the early understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, "Even with the strong La Niña event fading in the tropics last spring, the North Pacific's sea surface temperature anomaly pattern has remained strongly negative since last fall. This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.

According to the U.S. National Climate Data Center (NCDC) last January’s temperatures were “-0.3 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the 1901-2000 average.”

A further blow was delivered to global warming by a study issued by Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University, which said:

No tangible, physical evidence exists that proves a cause-and-effect relationship between global climate changes and atmospheric CO2. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climate warming causes CO2, not vice versa. No doubt exists that the present high levels of atmospheric CO2 are the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming remains to be proven.

Is it any wonder the bait-and-switch global warming advocates are now calling the natural oscillations in weather “climate change?”  If the data doesn't’t support the faulty computer-model junk science of melting polar caps and its commensurate rise in sea levels, then just give the sham enterprise another label. Hysteria, by any other name, is still hysteria.

Environmentalists hold to a post-Christian, Homo sapiens-centric worldview. They believe that man the Sapient is at the center of all things, including the weather. The religious dogma of climate change believes that nothing is impossible for its pseudoscientific priesthood – not even a crusade to control the Earth’s polar caps and prevent the extinction of species.

Political operatives exploit the more gullible among us to surrender our money and, more importantly, our freedoms so that “experts” can bring balance to a crumbling universe, saving us all in the process.

There is no better advocate for questionable environmental pseudoscience than the media. In an article appearing in the British Journalism Review in 2007, environmentalists Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith expressed relief at the media’s abandonment of journalistic skepticism and evenhandedness in their climate change coverage:

Guided by their ritual doubting, journalists have, until recently, sought to present what they believed to be a “balanced” picture of the discussion…Hence, such “balanced” reporting resulted in years of distorted coverage, well-documented in academic research on both sides of the Atlantic, which impeded the emergence of a difficult and urgent topic into political and public debate.

We are entering a period when careful interpretation and communication of the economic, political and social dimensions of climate change will be vital. Failure to tell these aspects of the story could be of even greater significance than the painfully slow arrival at the basics of the science. The media will offer the context within which we decide the If, How and When of transforming energy-hungry lifestyles and economies. And it is through the media, above all, that people and politicians will process ideas about how to adapt to climate change.

The “change” the climate change advocates are after, therefore, has nothing to do with the weather but everything to do with political power; and they will do or say anything to achieve it.

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” Said Stephen Schneider, a member of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and professor of biology at Stanford University.

Professor Schneider has a point. One need go no further than to read the dire predictions made by his fellow Stanford faculty member Professor Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 environmental masterpiece “The Population Bomb”:

• The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines…hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.
• Smog disasters in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles.
• I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

Tonight Show host Jay Leno said it best: “According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”

In 1990, Professor Ehrlich got to the heart of what environmental hysteria is all about:

We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is a disease, not the cure.

The Old Testament tells the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac being stopped by the intervention of an angel. No such angel exists in the religion of climate change to stay the hand of the environmentalist. Nowhere is that point made more clear than by German Green Party leader Carl Amery:

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

The cult of environmentalism, therefore, seeks to overthrow the real-world, steadfast, centuries old, Judeo-Christian love and compassion in the pursuit of an impossible static preservation of our ever-changing planet. It is odd how the Darwinist materialist believes so firmly in evolution, yet is hysterically frightened by global change. 

Democratic man is incapable of ruling himself in the view of climate change’s computer molders; and every one of their initiatives, no matter how draconian, is justified in the name saving this Island Earth.

The political-religious movement of environmentalism may go down as one of history’s strangest success stories – in that this demagogic brand of totalitarianism strode into power not on a platform of real or imagined grievances like Lenin’s Communism and Hitler’s Fascism, but in the guise of icecap-preserving, polar bear-saving, forest-loving meteorologists.