The greatest hoax since the Piltdown Man

By JR Dieckmann

Every member of Congress has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I'm pretty sure they have now replaced that oath with a new oath to protect and defend Barack Obama. Obama, along with Al Gore, is promoting the greatest historical hoax since the Piltdown Man.

As you know, the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas, and now, a gas hazardous to human life. Just see how long life on Earth would last without CO2.

All life would be gone in less than a generation. Plant life would no longer be able to grow and produce oxygen. The food chain would be disrupted causing mass starvation. The existing oxygen would be depleted within a few years and replaced with carbon dioxide from the animal life until they all die. The end of life on Earth would result from the elimination of CO2 from our atmosphere.

Fox News reports that a top White House economic official warned:

"If you don't pass this [climate change] legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

One must ask; when was the last time Congress regulated "on a market-based way?" Not since 2006 when there was at least some free-market common sense in Washington. This brings up two basic constitutional issues:

In the first place; the final clause in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

That seems pretty clear in its wording. It simply says that [Congress] may make laws and create departments and federal agencies which shall be necessary for carrying out the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

So the question is, just which enumerated power in the Constitution is relevant to the EPA? I find nowhere in the Constitution does it grant to the federal government the power to regulate the environment; nor can I imagine what other purpose their might be for the EPA.

Again, I refer to this clause: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..." Which of the forgoing powers does the EPA support? If it is not proper and necessary for carrying into execution a power granted to the federal government, then it doesn't belong in the federal government — it is a right reserved to the states or to the people as prescribed in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In the second place; The EPA is "going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way?" This sounds to me like the EPA is going to be making laws to regulate how we use energy and how much CO2 we emit. The problem is that only Congress can make laws, not some agency created by Congress, and certainly not an agency which has no basis for its existence in the Constitution. Are we expected to obey laws that were not legally created by Congress? What happens if we "just say no?"

This Congress needs to go back and read the Constitution. If we need agencies and regulations to deal with air pollution, that's fine — as long as they are state and local agencies, not federal government agencies that are prohibited by the Constitution.

Obama's plan to fight global warming says we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by the year 2020, and 80% by the end of the century. Since water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gasses, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have virtually no effect on the climate.

CO2 accounts for only 3.62% of total greenhouse gasses while human activity accounts for only 3.4% of that amount. The total CO2 emissions from human activity amount to a mere 0.00123% of all greenhouse gasses. It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gasses by even two thousandths of one percent, even by cutting CO2 emissions to zero. Methane gas is just one tenth of that amount so farmers don't have to worry about bovine flatulence either. Nothing we do will have any effect on the climate — and Congress cannot control the weather.

The logic of global warming alarmists would also seem to indicate that once CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere it just stays there and builds up. This is preposterous. Have these people never heard of the carbon cycle or gravity? They must have thought that Led Zeppelin was a real airship too.

CO2, being heavier than air (nitrogen & oxygen), naturally settles back to earth to feed the vegetation, which uses the carbon atoms as building blocks for growth while releasing the oxygen atoms back into the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is, the more vegetation grows and the more oxygen it produces. Without CO2 in the air, there would be no life on the planet. So the EPA has classified CO2 as "harmful to life?" Are they nuts? Tell it to the plants in your garden and watch them die of shock.

But if that isn't enough, last week Congress passed the Clean Water Restoration Act which gives the EPA the power to regulate all natural public waters in the U.S., essentially turning over control of all lands which contain water to the federal government. Every river, every lake, every stream, every wetlands, every pond — pretty much every natural resource that uses nature's waters will be regulated by this unconstitutional agency.

This is a huge intrusion of the federal government into the states' lands and rights. This is one result of Obama's appointment of Cass Sunstein as "regulatory czar" where he can impose his radical agenda and sneaky methods on all of us.

By simply removing the word "navigable" from the phrase "navigable waters of the United States" in the 1972 The Clean Water Act, Sunstein has now given the federal government powers over all U.S. waters and adjacent lands including private property. This is a tactic Sunstein calls "nudging" as described in his book, "Nudge." You simply change a word here and there to tweak a policy into something that was never intended in its original form.

The 1972 Clean Water Act was developed to control the discharge of pollutants into public waters. As a result of the Obama administration, it has now been used to put California's central valley farms out of business and turn their land into a desert wasteland by cutting off their water supply to protect a stinking smelt fish from being sucked into the pumps. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply install screens on the pump inlets? Who needs smelt fish anyway?

Where is the scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the first place? The atmosphere on Venus is full of CO2 and methane and it's very hot there, up to 900 degrees. But Mars also has an atmosphere of methane and mostly CO2 but it's very cold on Mars, ranging from +1 to -178 degrees. Why isn't it hot on Mars too? What about the "greenhouse effect?"

Consider the temperature and CO2 historic records of the Earth which Al Gore uses to establish his premise. They show a relationship between temperature and CO2, but with a closer look, they also show that changes in CO2 levels trail the temperature changes by several hundred years. It would appear that the temperature on Earth is what controls the CO2 content in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

What the climate models fail to take into account:

Climate records, until very recently, have been gathered from ground-based weather stations. You cannot take the temperature of the Earth from ground-based weather stations and expect to get accurate readings. These reading are a result not only of actual atmospheric temperatures but also ground-effects as well: urban sprawl; pavements; buildings; foliage; air conditioning and ventilation exhaust; road traffic; etc. Not only are readings from various locations different, they continually change. The only way to take the Earth's temperature is from space. We have been doing that for the past couple of decades and the readings show little or no change at all in overall temperatures.

Global climate and temperatures are subject to much more than simply the contents of the atmosphere. The primary thermostat of the earth is the sun. One important factor here is the distance between the Earth and the sun which varies between 91 million miles, and 94.5 million miles. When Earth is closer to the sun, it gets warmer. When further from the sun it gets colder.

Another factor is the axial tilt of the planet of 23.4 degrees with a rotational period of 25,700 years counter to the rotational direction of the planet. As an example; when the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, and the planet is closer to the sun, the weather is going to be warmer.

With the current cooling trend over the past decade, the term "global warming" has become no longer acceptable by its promoters. It has morphed into "climate change" which is absolutely meaningless. Of course there is climate change — there always has been and always will be.

Now, if you want to stabilize the Earth's wobbling axis cycle, and regulate its orbit cycle around the sun which varies from round to oval over centuries of time, then you might be able to reduce climate change. But what you can't do is regulate it with draconian legislation.

But that alone won't be enough. You're also going to have to control sun spot activity which is probably the major cause of climate change. Sun spots run in 11 year cycles — from sunspot maximum to minimum, then back to maximum. When sunspot activity is at maximum, the sun produces more radiation that heats the Earth, and less when sunspot activity is at minimum.

Since these cycles mentioned above have different periods, maximum alignments of them don't happen too often. When they do, the Earth can become warmer or colder.

The last sunspot maximum was in 1999, the weather was warm, and Al Gore began his global warming campaign which resulted in his horror movie that we all know and loved. At the high peak of the sunspot cycle, Al Gore and the 'Climites' told the world that the planet is going to continue getting warmer based on consensus and insufficient data from climate scientists who should have known better.

When the cooling cycle began, they all tried to hide their mistakes by fudging the data and cooking the books to protect their reputations, government grants, and careers. The result is the Piltdown Man of the 21st century which governments and the U.N. recognized as a great opportunity to promote global socialism.

The sunspot minimum was reached in late 2005 which accounts for the cooling over the last decade. That means that we should be seeing warming now, and another sunspot maximum in 2010. Apocalyptic predictions in programs on the Science Channel usually include high sunspot activity by 2012 in their programs.

But something is terribly wrong and the media is ignoring it. The Earth should now be warming again, but it's still cooling. Why? Because there have been absolutely no sunspots for the past 3 years. The sunspot activity cycle has been disrupted, as has occurred before, most recently about 10,000 years ago. If the sunspots don't return soon, we should be preparing for another ice age, not global warming.

If Obama, Gore, and the IPCC are right about CO2 causing global warming, then we should be producing as much of it as possible to keep the Earth warm in the absence of solar sunspot activity until the sunspots return.

© JR Dieckmann