Posted 1:48 PM by Steve
Global Warming is the latest tool of the left to try and terrorize the world into agreeing with them. To the left, industrialization and progress is the enemy. It creates high standards of living and incubates a respect for human rights, these two factors make it difficult to create socialist societies. For socialist societies to form, the standard of living needs to be low for the average person so there is widespread discontent and human rights cannot be highly valued because, after all, a socialist society neccesarily must infringe on people's rights to exert the level of control needed to engineer a society for the "greater good". Socialists suffer from poor self-esteem because individually they are weak and they project this weakness towards "society" in general. Their own weakness leads them to believe that a intellectual Oligarchy is required to save mankind from itself. This contrasts with the conservative and libertarian belief that man is essentially capable and good and by acting in his own best interests, he will have an overall positive effect on society.

The left has tried for decades to link progress and development with environmental disaster. Whether the climate is warming or not, the current concept of "global warming" is a myth. A Brothers Grimm fairy tale to frighten the young. This modern urban legend perpetuated by those who have a political bone to pick with capitalism. In 1995, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its5-yearly report on climate change, in a blaze of publicity, which containedthe now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence onglobal climate".

Sadly, the I.P.C.C. is made up of a majority Sociologists, not Climatologists.Those now touting "Global Warming" as the latest doomsday scenario to frighten mankind were the same simplistic and warped people who touted the "population bomb" which mistakenly predicted mass worldwide starvation by the year 2000.

These people are anti-Capitalist Pro-Socialists who believe in the consolidation of power and the "redistribution" of wealth. What the I.P.C.C. has never admitted or even addressed is the affect of solar output on climate temperature variations. Our planet has experienced extreme temperature variations from the beginning with or without the presence of human beings. Long after we have left this planet and/or are extinct on Earth the climate will experience change. The data shows that there have been warmer and cooler periods in the Earth's recent history.

The I.P.C.C. simply ignores the Medieval Warm Period because the increase in temperature does not conveniently coincide with the Industrial Revolution, which is the period in which they say the damage was done. It also happened to be the period of the greatest growth in wealth of our planet. Coincidence? Additionally, the climate experienced a significant drop in temperature between 1500 A.D. and 1900 A.D., sometimes called a mini-"Ice Age"?. The steady increase from the low temperature at about 1625 AD corresponds to the same time period the I.P.C.C. claims human behavior startedaffecting the climate. I submit that the upslope is simply a natural cycle and eventuallythe Global temperature will start to level off until the next cyclical climatic event. Also ignored by the I.P.C.C. is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period during which the sun had virtually no sunspot activity at all.

Looking at a timeline we can see that theMaunder Minimum occurred precisely at the time of our last "Ice Age"?.The inference is clear, it was the variation in solar output that caused the little Ice Age and in all probability caused the Medieval Warm Period too. Carbon 14 isotopes are used as a proxy for solar activity prior to 1600 AD and this indicates a high level of solar activity during the medieval period, resulting in climatic warmth and also a reduced level of solar activity during a cold period known as the "Sporer Minimum" centered around 1350 A.D.

Climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the "Global Warming" theory:
1. If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?

2. If the variable solar output of our sun caused both theMedieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar output ofthe20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warming? Both propositions pose a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the "Global Warming" theory as advanced by the I.P.C.C.. This is because the new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gasses, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends. The power of the sun to modulate our climate has been reinforced by a large body of recent research that shows it is not only the cyclical warming and cooling of the sun (manifested by the 11 year sunspot cycle) causing our climate to change but also changes in the solar spectrum towards the greater ultra-violet radiation compared with visible or infra-red light. The problem with the "Global Warming" theory is that it is based on questionable conclusions on questionable data on many levels. In other words, it is guesswork about guesswork.

1. Are global temperatures actually increasing if one accounts forthe effect of urban heat pockets?

2. If in fact the global temperature is increasing is it due to increased greenhouse gas or increased solar output?

3. If in fact it is greenhouse gas that is responsible for the increase in temperature, is reasonable to conclude that it is man's meager 1 to 1.5% contribution that is causing the increase?

The Earth may indeed be on a warmingtrend due to higher solar output. But it's industrialization and mankind that "chicken-littles" of the left ultimately want to pin the blame on. They have lost on the political front and the social front and now their only retreat is a place where unproven theory can safely incubate: Academia and the Media.