After Global Warming

Science and ideology don't mix. They never have and they never will. The house of cards that is the science behind "climate change" is collapsing at exactly the same time it is being imposed by the Obama administration and Congress as an ideological "truth." America is facing the perfect storm of an imploding scientific theory that will be enforced by the rule of law.

Make no mistake: the big bad wolf of truth is about to blow the straw house of global warming to bits. This is why there was a sudden shift, in the last nine months, from the use of "man made global warming" to "climate change" by the proponents of the theory.

The scientific tug of war over whether or not the planet is heating or cooling has been going on for over 100 years. The difference between the past and our current situation is that governments around the world are passing (or attempting to pass) draconian laws and enforcing (or attempting to enforce) authoritarian treaties in order to "regulate" the planet's temperature.

The predictions of impending doom are nothing new. Business and Media Institute published an article titled "Fire and Ice" that details the media's historical treatment of the debate. The article includes these two charts of historical time lines that say it all:

time line



time line

I
predicted months ago (in a couple of different places), "Man made global warming" would be replaced with the new term "climate change." The reason for this shift: the proponents of man made global warming are having a tough time with the evidence.

The original hypothesis foretold, and the computer models affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. The exponential increase in CO2 is, apparently, occurring; but the exponential increase in temperature (predicted as a result of the increase in CO2) is not.

The earth's overall temperature in the last several years has either remained steady or slightly decreased -- depending on which side of the issue is interpreting the data. No one is maintaining that the world is getting warmer and warmer every single year, which was the initial prediction.[i]

Nevertheless, the current administration is risking America's economic future on "green" energy in an effort to solve an unproven crisis. The cap and trade legislation is moving ahead in spite of the fact that the United States is already one of the leading nations in curtailing CO2 output.

Other countries, which are rapidly expanding their manufacturing base, are doing exactly the opposite. China, for example, now uses more coal for producing power than the US, Europe, and Japan combined. President Obama, on the other hand, has openly called for the destruction of the coal industry in the United States.

Obama wants to build windmills instead:

We're going to have to, I think, invest heavily in clean energy. And if we have a cap and trade system, we can generate $150 billion over ten years to invest in solar and wind and biodiesel and train people to build windmills and build solar panels and make buildings more energy efficient. And make alternative fuels.

There are two problems with the President's approach.  Windmills don't reduce the amount of CO2 (if that is really the issue) and windmills don't provide nearly the amount of energy promised.

The President has promised to pump billions of dollars into new "green" energy systems. Hundreds of companies will lay claim to the federal dollars and America will soon have a new Silicon Valley that produces windmills and solar panels. The problem with this strategy is that, absent subsidies and regulations, there is no real market anywhere in the world for these products.

So while America fails to provide inexpensive and reliable energy sources that would attract and hold real manufacturing in the United States, countries like, China, Japan, India (and even most countries in Europe) will move, full steam ahead, with fuels including nuclear, coal, and natural gas. These are far more efficient forms of energy production than wind or solar.

Look down the road America. In ten years, energy prices in the United States are going to go through the roof. China, by comparison, will have less expensive (and more abundant) energy, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Who, in his or her right mind, would start a new manufacturing company in the US when faced with such obstacles?

How much will this new cleaner energy cost the average citizen? CNN recently reported:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under a hypothetical cap and trade law, this would cost a household an average of $1,600 a year for the first ten years...

This means that every family in America will be paying more money for less reliable energy.

Obama's proposal is based on environmental ideology -- not on science. He has proposed a system that is guaranteed, in the long run, to provide fewer jobs and more expensive energy for all Americans.

That is a lot of change ... and no hope.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved , and the new memoir , Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

[i] "Exponentially warmer" means that the earth will warm faster every year -- each year being warmer, and warming faster, than the one before. Remember Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph? For an amusing defense of the graph -- by a "reputable" publication -- click here. Pay special attention to the update at the bottom of the article.
Science and ideology don't mix. They never have and they never will. The house of cards that is the science behind "climate change" is collapsing at exactly the same time it is being imposed by the Obama administration and Congress as an ideological "truth." America is facing the perfect storm of an imploding scientific theory that will be enforced by the rule of law.

Make no mistake: the big bad wolf of truth is about to blow the straw house of global warming to bits. This is why there was a sudden shift, in the last nine months, from the use of "man made global warming" to "climate change" by the proponents of the theory.

The scientific tug of war over whether or not the planet is heating or cooling has been going on for over 100 years. The difference between the past and our current situation is that governments around the world are passing (or attempting to pass) draconian laws and enforcing (or attempting to enforce) authoritarian treaties in order to "regulate" the planet's temperature.

The predictions of impending doom are nothing new. Business and Media Institute published an article titled "Fire and Ice" that details the media's historical treatment of the debate. The article includes these two charts of historical time lines that say it all:

time line



time line

I
predicted months ago (in a couple of different places), "Man made global warming" would be replaced with the new term "climate change." The reason for this shift: the proponents of man made global warming are having a tough time with the evidence.

The original hypothesis foretold, and the computer models affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. The exponential increase in CO2 is, apparently, occurring; but the exponential increase in temperature (predicted as a result of the increase in CO2) is not.

The earth's overall temperature in the last several years has either remained steady or slightly decreased -- depending on which side of the issue is interpreting the data. No one is maintaining that the world is getting warmer and warmer every single year, which was the initial prediction.[i]

Nevertheless, the current administration is risking America's economic future on "green" energy in an effort to solve an unproven crisis. The cap and trade legislation is moving ahead in spite of the fact that the United States is already one of the leading nations in curtailing CO2 output.

Other countries, which are rapidly expanding their manufacturing base, are doing exactly the opposite. China, for example, now uses more coal for producing power than the US, Europe, and Japan combined. President Obama, on the other hand, has openly called for the destruction of the coal industry in the United States.

Obama wants to build windmills instead:

We're going to have to, I think, invest heavily in clean energy. And if we have a cap and trade system, we can generate $150 billion over ten years to invest in solar and wind and biodiesel and train people to build windmills and build solar panels and make buildings more energy efficient. And make alternative fuels.

There are two problems with the President's approach.  Windmills don't reduce the amount of CO2 (if that is really the issue) and windmills don't provide nearly the amount of energy promised.

The President has promised to pump billions of dollars into new "green" energy systems. Hundreds of companies will lay claim to the federal dollars and America will soon have a new Silicon Valley that produces windmills and solar panels. The problem with this strategy is that, absent subsidies and regulations, there is no real market anywhere in the world for these products.

So while America fails to provide inexpensive and reliable energy sources that would attract and hold real manufacturing in the United States, countries like, China, Japan, India (and even most countries in Europe) will move, full steam ahead, with fuels including nuclear, coal, and natural gas. These are far more efficient forms of energy production than wind or solar.

Look down the road America. In ten years, energy prices in the United States are going to go through the roof. China, by comparison, will have less expensive (and more abundant) energy, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Who, in his or her right mind, would start a new manufacturing company in the US when faced with such obstacles?

How much will this new cleaner energy cost the average citizen? CNN recently reported:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under a hypothetical cap and trade law, this would cost a household an average of $1,600 a year for the first ten years...

This means that every family in America will be paying more money for less reliable energy.

Obama's proposal is based on environmental ideology -- not on science. He has proposed a system that is guaranteed, in the long run, to provide fewer jobs and more expensive energy for all Americans.

That is a lot of change ... and no hope.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved , and the new memoir , Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

[i] "Exponentially warmer" means that the earth will warm faster every year -- each year being warmer, and warming faster, than the one before. Remember Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph? For an amusing defense of the graph -- by a "reputable" publication -- click here. Pay special attention to the update at the bottom of the article.