Paul A. Ibbetson
The death of big environment: assessing loss and gain
By Paul A. Ibbetson
For all who have challenged the notion that man is single-handedly destroying the planet with everything from America's industrial system to your shiny SUV — all the way down to your uncle's favorite cow "Gertrude" on the farm, take a moment to lower your shields as the opposition is about to be sent on the run. As reported by Jon Lott on FOXNews.com, validated e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England show an extended conspiracy by scientists to hide facts that would challenge man-made global warming and to purposely skew data presented to the public. These e-mails implicate scientists working closely with the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — established by the United Nations), which puts the whole mess right in the area of Al Gore-Country.
Will there be a liberal spin placed on the fact that the public has been lied to about one of the biggest issues of our time — human participation in the fate of the planet? As reported by Jon Lott, the answer appears to be that it is already happening as one alleged conspirator, Professor Phil Jones, attempted to explain one of his e-mail communications that included the use of the word "trick" in a sentence, which he says was really meant to mean "solve a problem." If that makes you laugh, then you're normal because it is a terrible attempt to hide his culpability, especially when he uses the word "trick" in this sentence: "...trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Even though I am a former criminal investigator, you don't have to be one to see that these communications are about deceiving the public to promote a false agenda.
In fact, the evidence of the man-made global warming hoax found in these communications is less of a shocking occurrence than it was an inevitable outcome. A growing number of people, both laymen and those in the fields of science, have been joining the ranks of the man-made global warming skeptics. Why? Because the premise by which the man-made global warming scenario has been laid out from the very beginning has always stunk of manipulation and coercion. When Al Gore came out with his movie An Inconvenient Truth, his official website asked people to sign a pledge to see the film. Think about it — that's weird. We pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge to donate to charities, we pledge to be faithful to our partners in marriage, but pledging to watch a movie on man-made global warming? It smacks of coercion. Even those who made the pledge of man-made global warming allegiance should have been struck back to their senses that the fix was in when Al Gore himself, after incessant speeches on the need for the public to curb energy use, was found by the records of the Nashville Electric Service in 2007 to be using more than 20 times the national average of Kilowatt hours for his personal home. Wow, when the pushers themselves don't believe in their product, it is a red flag you can't overlook.
For those who were still not swayed that something was really wrong with the global warming climate pitch, let's take our observations to court. Justice Burton of the High Court of London ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth had nine significant errors and should be seen as a political movie as opposed to a scientific movie. This is what we call a trend of deception. The next thing that placed me (and many others) on alert was the complete intolerance for questions and debate on the validity of the subject. Following Al Gore's statement of the existence of scientific consensus supporting man-made global warming and his declaration of the "end of the debate," those who questioned the new Gore Law were treated as heretics. I knew as I spoke directly on my radio show, the Conscience of Kansas, that many of my guests had braved ridicule within their professions to question the idea that we were destroying the planet. Some of these individuals included: physicist Fred Singer; researchers Christopher Horner, Lawrence Solomon, and E. Calvin Beisner; documentarian Phelim McAleer; and many others. These people had the fortitude to challenge the faulty science and the lack of tolerance for debate. Although I know that the machine of 'Big Environment' is not yet defeated and that those invested in "going-green" — be it for wholesome or corrupt reasons — will not easily give up their plans for our future; I think the skeptics deserve to at least take a momentary bow.
What has been gained by the Climate Research Unit e-mail(s) discovery is another valuable exhibit in the growing undeniable evidence that the promotion of man-made global warming is nothing more than an expensive ruse. What has been lost is that over the course of exposing this scam, true environmentalism may be tainted. The opportunity to deal with environmentalist issues with pro-growth, pro-capitalistic measures that will ensure America's economic future as well as our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet may very well be more limited in the near future. These limitations may come about as the product of public sentiment after everyone has full knowledge of the potential green crimes committed by those who would try to force the world to follow a political agenda under the guise of saving the planet.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
December 11, 2009
For all who have challenged the notion that man is single-handedly destroying the planet with everything from America's industrial system to your shiny SUV — all the way down to your uncle's favorite cow "Gertrude" on the farm, take a moment to lower your shields as the opposition is about to be sent on the run. As reported by Jon Lott on FOXNews.com, validated e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England show an extended conspiracy by scientists to hide facts that would challenge man-made global warming and to purposely skew data presented to the public. These e-mails implicate scientists working closely with the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — established by the United Nations), which puts the whole mess right in the area of Al Gore-Country.
Will there be a liberal spin placed on the fact that the public has been lied to about one of the biggest issues of our time — human participation in the fate of the planet? As reported by Jon Lott, the answer appears to be that it is already happening as one alleged conspirator, Professor Phil Jones, attempted to explain one of his e-mail communications that included the use of the word "trick" in a sentence, which he says was really meant to mean "solve a problem." If that makes you laugh, then you're normal because it is a terrible attempt to hide his culpability, especially when he uses the word "trick" in this sentence: "...trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Even though I am a former criminal investigator, you don't have to be one to see that these communications are about deceiving the public to promote a false agenda.
In fact, the evidence of the man-made global warming hoax found in these communications is less of a shocking occurrence than it was an inevitable outcome. A growing number of people, both laymen and those in the fields of science, have been joining the ranks of the man-made global warming skeptics. Why? Because the premise by which the man-made global warming scenario has been laid out from the very beginning has always stunk of manipulation and coercion. When Al Gore came out with his movie An Inconvenient Truth, his official website asked people to sign a pledge to see the film. Think about it — that's weird. We pledge allegiance to the flag, we pledge to donate to charities, we pledge to be faithful to our partners in marriage, but pledging to watch a movie on man-made global warming? It smacks of coercion. Even those who made the pledge of man-made global warming allegiance should have been struck back to their senses that the fix was in when Al Gore himself, after incessant speeches on the need for the public to curb energy use, was found by the records of the Nashville Electric Service in 2007 to be using more than 20 times the national average of Kilowatt hours for his personal home. Wow, when the pushers themselves don't believe in their product, it is a red flag you can't overlook.
For those who were still not swayed that something was really wrong with the global warming climate pitch, let's take our observations to court. Justice Burton of the High Court of London ruled that Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth had nine significant errors and should be seen as a political movie as opposed to a scientific movie. This is what we call a trend of deception. The next thing that placed me (and many others) on alert was the complete intolerance for questions and debate on the validity of the subject. Following Al Gore's statement of the existence of scientific consensus supporting man-made global warming and his declaration of the "end of the debate," those who questioned the new Gore Law were treated as heretics. I knew as I spoke directly on my radio show, the Conscience of Kansas, that many of my guests had braved ridicule within their professions to question the idea that we were destroying the planet. Some of these individuals included: physicist Fred Singer; researchers Christopher Horner, Lawrence Solomon, and E. Calvin Beisner; documentarian Phelim McAleer; and many others. These people had the fortitude to challenge the faulty science and the lack of tolerance for debate. Although I know that the machine of 'Big Environment' is not yet defeated and that those invested in "going-green" — be it for wholesome or corrupt reasons — will not easily give up their plans for our future; I think the skeptics deserve to at least take a momentary bow.
What has been gained by the Climate Research Unit e-mail(s) discovery is another valuable exhibit in the growing undeniable evidence that the promotion of man-made global warming is nothing more than an expensive ruse. What has been lost is that over the course of exposing this scam, true environmentalism may be tainted. The opportunity to deal with environmentalist issues with pro-growth, pro-capitalistic measures that will ensure America's economic future as well as our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet may very well be more limited in the near future. These limitations may come about as the product of public sentiment after everyone has full knowledge of the potential green crimes committed by those who would try to force the world to follow a political agenda under the guise of saving the planet.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
