The Global Warming Hoax

If you don't believe in global warming you're not thinking? To the contrary, to believe that it is, means that you aren’t thinking at all. Instead, you’ve made a conclusion. In science, until you have proof backed by factual evidence, you have a theory. Without such proof, you have to consider all possibilities and “think” before you speak. There are many questions you must ask yourself. Why, (according to NASA’s lightly reported update) was 1934 the hottest year in the U.S. in the last century? Why, according to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the climate warmer during the middle ages than it is today, especially since there was less human population and no industrialization at all? Why, during the last 18,000 years, have the sea levels risen 400 feet? Why were we worried about an oncoming ice age back in 1978?

Carbon dioxide levels definitely appear to be on the rise. But is this rise enough to plunge the entire earth into total obliteration? And, is the rise due to human intervention? The idea to plant trees to offset one’s personal “carbon footprint” has now been shown to be a useless idea. After 10 years of study, Duke University has concluded that for trees to process more carbon dioxide, they must use a lot more water and nutrients. What an inconvenient truth that is.

Keep in mind that the earth is a highly political organism. Governments and media all have their agenda. Governments thrive on the fact that you need them to solve problems. The more problems there are, whether real or illusionary, the more they grow. Media need big stories. Individuals (on both sides) are making millions on the global warming hysteria. If you’re old enough, remember how nukes were going to kill us all? Or how acid rain would destroy the earth by the year 2000?

If we are serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, political considerations should be off the table. Fossil fuel electricity generation is slated to account for 40% of global greenhouse emissions by 2020. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently stated that nuclear power would be a viable alternative. It would also be a perfect alternative for oil and coal-fired power generation. But wait, that’s probably not on the table for most global warming deputies is it? Why not? Also, since China and India are industrializing and turning into the biggest polluters of the earth, how come we continue to purchase goods and services from them while ignoring their impact? Why don’t we have a massive boycott until they implement U.S. pollution standards? Should their needs outweigh the needs of the earth?

Just one more thing. If you’re pushing the use of compact fluorescent bulbs, you can’t be thinking. They have mercury in them. That’ll kill us all.