Reining in the "pale horse" of the theocratic fundamentalist Greenies

By Curtis Dahlgren

"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." — Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, June 1975 (from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming," Horner)

"MY ANXIETY ATTACKS BEGAN TWO SUMMERS AGO. They were mild at first, a low-level unease. But over a period of months, they grew steadily worse, morphing into full-fledged fits of panic. I was a wreck. The sight of an idling car, heat-trapping carbon dioxide spewing from its tailpipe, would send me into an hours-long panic, complete with shaking, the sweats, and staring off into space . . I had come down with a severe case of eco-anxiety — a chronic fear of the environmental future."

This quote is from the Aug/Sept 2006 issue of "Plenty" magazine (again quoted by Christopher Horner). The title of the article was "Global Worrying: 'The environment is in peril and anxiety disorders are on the rise.' What's the connection?"

YES, WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE? These are the kinds of unanswered questions we get when people put their trust in pop psychology and junk science, aided and abetted by news media "mainstreamers." Here's one dumb question:

Are we seeing an increase in mental disorders because of real threats to the polar ice caps, or is "global warming" simply junk science caused by an increase in mental disorders? Perhaps Al Gore's paranoia could be attributed to Post-traumatic Stress Disorder caused by the 2000 election. And another dumb question:

Is Al's "movie" not a case of CHILD ABUSE — by inflicting our school children with even more eco-anxieties and phobias (all based on false conclusions based on false premises)?

An inconvenient fact is that the Boy-who-cries-wolf is always the last one to know that he is being laughed to scorn. Another fact is: The first sign of Boys-crying-wolf is a convenient lack of understanding of "cause-and-effect." REAL science is very careful to distinguish between "causality" and coincidence. In other words:

The news media often hears rumors from Academia regarding ongoing research. These rumors are sometimes leaked and put into headlines long before the research is concluded, resulting in the many, many faddish "scares" inundating us (from "eggs and dairy products will kill you" to "the oceans are rising").

The latest one I heard about says that people who use mouth wash a lot have more throat cancer. Their "simplistic" conclusion is that the alcohol in mouth washes causes cancer. But wait a minute; don't smokers gargle a lot more with mouth wash than the average person? Exactly, so obviously the cancer is caused by the smoke, not the mouth wash.

Weather and climate on a global scale is a much more complicated topic of research, but the eco-freaks (the "fundies" who worship the Great Mother of the Gods, Mother Earth) try to tell us that all the questions have been answered, THE DEBATE IS OVER.

The most hilarious "news story" that has appeared lately says that melting glaciers at the south pole are going to raise ocean levels "several feet more" than previously predicted. I say HILARIOUS because:

1) The greater part of the earth is ocean.

2) Antarctica is a relatively tiny, minuscule part of the earth.

3) When ice and snow return to the liquid state, their volume contracts.

4) A floating, melting iceberg does not increase water level, because -

5) Its weight displaces exactly its equivalent in liquid form (like a ship).

6) SHOW ME THE MATH ("rising ocean" predictions are anxiety-based, not math based)

7) Even if mountain glaciers melted, the heat required to cause that would also increase the rate of evaporation of water from the oceans, seas, and lakes; probably this would create a vapor barrier in the atmosphere that would reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of heat reaching the surface (a self-regulating law of nature, popularly called the Gaia effect).

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE — NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT "RESEARCH" MONEY!

Increased amounts of carbon dioxide trapped in air from warmer periods of earth history? The jury is still out though; HONEST scientists admit that the higher CO2 levels might have been the result of the warm weather, not the CAUSE of it.

A tiny rise in global temps from 1900 to 2000 — unique and "man-made"? SHOW ME THE PROOF. The hottest years of the 20th century were 1932-1937 — long before interstate highways and megalopolises, or "coal-fired power plants."

Here's an eye-opening quote from
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0708/0708greencrazy.htm

The greens are going crazy
By Alan Caruba

"Early in July, Bret Stephens, writing in The Wall Street Journal, called global warming 'a mass hysteria phenomenon,' noting that 'NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years...'

"The global warming hoax has never been about the climate. It is about competing economic theories. 'Socialism may have failed as an economic theory,' wrote Stephens, 'but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.' [end quote]

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population." — Reid Bryson, in "Global Ecology; Readings towards a Rational Strategy for Man"; 1971 (quoted by Horner)

Those were the days, my friends ("The Way We Were," Barbra) when Time magazine was predicting another Ice Age, and Mr. Ehrlich's prediction of a billion people starving to death during the 1970s (or the 80s at the latest) flopped like a beached whale.

While the Lefties all decry the "disastrous" eco-policies of President George W. Bush, the fact remains that the earth is cooler now than it was during Al Gore's run for the White House in 2000! The severe winter of 2008-09 has restored most of the "missing" ice in the Arctic. I forgot to mention last week, but London was hit by a crippling snowfall. I would not be a bit surprised to hear soon that Greenland is cooling (it is likely that the "warming" there was caused by temporary changes in the jet stream and ocean currents). The Vikings once settled and farmed Greenland, during the age of engine-less sailing vessels.

Even a New York Times "green" columnist admitted on March 12, 2005:

"The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that environmental groups are too often alarmists. They have an awful track record, so they've lost credibility with the public . . I'm now skeptical of the 'I Have a Nightmare' speeches . . Environmental alarms have been screeching for so long that, like car alarms, they are now just irritating background noise."

On Friday February 6, 2009, concluding two days of filling in for Rush Limbaugh, Mark Belling made a prediction of his own: "Five years from now the Lefties won't even be mentioning global warming anymore." [despite all the fears they planted in the minds of our kids]

CONCLUSIONS?

"HOW COLD" has it been anyway? In the U.P. of Michigan, it was so cold that our groundhog refused to come out of his hole even for a minute. It's been "so cold" that I rarely sleep more than 3 hours at a time, so I can keep my wood stove burning. I heat my house strictly with dead trees (wood and junk mail) plus radon gas.

Now I'm "against" pollution as much as anyone (who's in favor of it anyway?), but volcanic eruptions and Saddam Hussein's oil well fires (not to mention brush fires caused by lightning and careless campers) have probably caused many times as much air pollution as our cars and trucks combined.

I moved north to a less-populated area so that I could actually see the stars and the northern lights (they've been curiously lacking during the last few years of "global cooling" due to fewer solar flares from the sun).

Speaking of that, the year Charles Darwin published his "Origin," there was a gigantic solar eruption on August 28th, 1859 (Scientific American, Aug 08). Ships at the equator saw northern lights reaching halfway to overhead. Telegraph communications were disrupted for more than a day. The sky lit up on September first. "Gold miners in the Rocky Mountains woke up and ate breakfast at 1 A.M., thinking the sun had risen on a cloudy day." ["Bracing for a Solar Superstorm" by Sten Odenwald and James Green]

Their article says that "The number of sunspots, along with other signs of solar magnetic activity, waxes and wanes on an 11-year cycle. The current cycle began this past January [2008]; over the coming half a decade, solar activity will ramp up from its current lull."

They say that the 1859 eruption was a once-in-500-years event (?). Personally, I would speculate whether or not that radiation from the sun is what caused the Academic world to go nuts over Darwin's theory (certainly he had more doubts about the theory than his own disciples), but "the point is" — we have bigger problems to worry about than the "idling cars" that cause "anxiety attacks" among our fundamentalist extremist Greenie neighbors. The next Big One might not mean an earthquake on the Left Coast, but a worldwide solar flare that could toast satellites and transformers on the power grids, causing widespread black-outs (not to mention radio communications and GPS failures).

If you like having "anxiety attacks," here's some trivia for you: A one-time solar Super Storm could cause more radiation than someone living on the earth for 70 years would receive from natural environmental sources. Reducing the stockpile of nukes owned by the U.S. and Russia wouldn't preclude this possibility on iota.

The bottom line is: Darwin is dead, but God is in control, not only of our Bottom Line, but the whole universe. "Put not your trust in princes."

P.S. Even evolutionists have heard of "the four horsemen of the Apocalypse," even if they don't believe. The fourth horse is a "pale" horse, according to the King James Version ("and his name who sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him, and Power was given unto them to kill with the sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth").

But the original Greek word for "pale" is actually "CHLOROS" (green). This eerily reminds me of the book written by the head of the Congress On Racial Equality. His thesis is that environmentalist mandates such as ethanol usage are killing the poorest people on earth by raising the price of corn [I'll try to find the title of the book].

Yes, whatever John meant by the "four horsemen," it is literally true that the pagans of Deep Ecology are killing with hunger — and the beasts that they worship (as in "save the wolf").

THE CONCLUDING CONCLUSION:

I want to close this little article with some advice for those who are "governing" this nation. Benjamin Franklin said, "Strive to be the greatest man in your country, and you may be disappointed. Strive to be the best and you may succeed: he may well win the race who runs by himself." ENOUGH SAID? If not, here's some more advice from Shakespeare:

"The play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

"Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot
That it do singe yourself."

"I can get no remedy against this consumption of the purse: borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable."

"Season your admiration for a while . . .
In the dead vast and middle of the night. . . ."

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts . . ."

[Exiting stage right]

© Curtis Dahlgren