If global warming and global politics were to go toe to toe, who do you think would win?  I know who would win – neither of these two.  That’s because global warming is global politics.  The two are inseparable in some very alarming and provocative ways.  No wonder the global warming activists are so heated, but just because politics will be politics doesn’t mean that global warming is all that the activists claim it to be.  As a rule, politics complicates things.  Things get even more complicated, however, where the myth of global warming presumes man-made causes.

Government Control Central

Though I know, and many other qualified scientists and environmentalists with me, that global warming is a myth, I have no intentions of twisting and tweaking the facts for political control – but some nations do.  It’s appalling, but true.  The logic runs something like this: create a “reasonable” scare and position oneself to collect the money aimed at preventing that threat from occurring.  This is the sometimes ruthless scenario played out time and time again in the global political arena, and the prevailing mood among leading nations is in favor of establishing this logic as status quo.

Big Business for Global Economies

Where is the motive for such criminal logic, you might ask?  One need look no further than the nearest major, alternative energy giant. In the US, alternative technologies must have been waiting in the wings at least since 1961 when Nixon first tried his hand at global warming activism, and now their time has finally arrived. Now, even more new ways to turn a green buck exist as research funding and grants for sustainable, green alternatives increase steadily.  With money as a new impetus for saving the Earth, no entity can be trusted to tell the real truth.  That’s politics.

Money Talks

Let’s dig a little deeper.  Who stands to benefit the least and lose the most if it turns out that man is not the main cause of global warming?  Right now, it’s the thousands of governments, political bodies and multinational corporations with heavy investments in green technology in the position to absolutely fail if the real truth is revealed.  As it turns out, these global warming advocates are the very ones in control of the global political spectrum, and control they do.  The small voice of balanced reason can barely be heard over prevailing public opinion, and that’s global politics.

World Leaders Take Sides

With all this in mind, the rhetoric of world leaders can be seen in a different light than put forth.  For instance, the Pope has encouraged global warming activism by indicating that everything possible to prevent it should be done “before it’s too late.”  Powerful figures like the Pope are in precise positions to influence public opinion despite facts to the contrary.  Whether it’s opinion based on faulty facts or opinion based on deep pockets, some opinion can be stunningly powerful. Unfortunately, world leaders can be paid by the highest bidder.  That’s global politics, too.

Just the Truth, Please

I, like so many other critical thinkers out there, simply want the truth – not opinion, not the lobbied version – just the truth.  If a growing number of facts are now indicating that global warming is not man-made and will likely not have the catastrophic effects predicted, then presenting global warming as if is is an inevitable truth is, in short, one big lie that just so happens to be paying out hefty dividends.  I, for one am not buying it, and if I choose to steward the earth into the sustainable future it’s not likely to be based on a load of powerful lies or dangerous hot air.

When it comes to the infamous global warming debate, Washington stands to benefit from winning the argument.  In more ways than one, the US federal government backs global warming advocates not because its the right thing to do for the Earth and for a sustainable future, but because it’s smart business.  The resulting scenario is a case of cops and robbers with all the lines blurred and grayed beyond sensible recognition.  At the heart of the matter is the scientific fact that many scientists now agree on – global warming is a myth and not a man-made phenomena.

Windfalls to Special Interests

However, lobbyist for clean coal, ethanol and other alternative energy sources often suggest otherwise to top Washington officials wielding the power to make or break global warming matters.  This means the control of financial windfalls from global warming initiatives is subject to tacit relationships between legislators and special interest groups. These relationships stand to benefit most from the view that global warming can be reduced by capping CO2 emissions – the so-called major cause of global warming.  The more seasoned the relationship, the greater the windfall.

Wall Street Speculation

Speaking of cap and trade, it just so happens to be a purposed solution for man-made global warming that has failed in Europe due to rampant trading of carbon permits – trading that was not  anticipated but was definitely forseeable.  Now, Washington and even some state governments are scrambling to carve out a solution that excludes Wall Street – but not all of Washington believes this is beneficial.  The current cap and trade auction scenario is based on the assumption that the free market can best take care of inequlities among the biggest CO2 emitters, but I do not agree.

Higher Costs for Tax Payers

For one thing, the capitalists of Wall Street may still be of the ludicrous notion that Washington  owes them a favor or two despite recent bailout bliss.  Windfalls to specials interests plus Wall Street speculation can only mean one thing for tax payers, increased costs.  In the form of higher taxes, the increases create pure dividends for Washington.  In the form of rising energy costs, they represent indirect dividends that ultimately go towards scratching the backs of the alternative energy lobbyists.  Then, the cycle starts all over again – Washington dividends, taxpayers’ doom.

Simple Cost Benefit Analysis

I must admit even with all the facts in front of me, I still was not convinced.  That is, until I sat down and did a simple cost benefit analysis using one piece of legislation proposed in December 2010 called the Clear Act.  The Clear Act is predicted to create jobs in green manufacturing and construction.  I ask at what cost?  Lets say the US aimed at reaching Kyoto protocol targets by 2012.  It’s estimated that 2.4 million jobs could be lost and $300 billion in economic output as well.   Can the Clear Act’s “cap and dividend” approach really make up for such deep costs?  I think not.

Cap and Dividend

With monthly checks of $1000 to $6000 going to taxpayers, cap and dividend approaches may seem like appealing alternatives to the Washington dividends likely with cap and trade scenarios, but I’m not convinced.  I know that the special interest lobby-Washington dividend cycle will continue to grind out negative consequences for taxpayers.  For most of us, it will take more than  a few thousand per month to keep up with its savage pace.  This is thus the design of a crooked and fallen system where one of the biggest scams of the century pays hefty Washington dividends.

For a very long time, politicians and scientists have said that the average temperature on our planet is rising every year and we should change our way of life style in order to preserve our world for future generations. On the other hand, there is a different group of scientists who affirm that global warming is a myth. Some even go so far as saying governments and authorities know this, but still support it because it distracts the voters’ attention. This debate has always got my attention and I started researching more about it.

What amazed me was how a group of scientists showed how the most reliable sources of temperature data are gathered from the satellites. Their data is gathered from all over the globe, not just from particular areas; it is very accurate and there is no room for human-error. And what do their studies show? That there is no global warming danger.

Previous studies supporting global warming have been gathering data from land-based stations; this particular research method can be inaccurate and only covers a small part of any area, so it is quite hard to make error-free conclusions. I was quite surprised to learn that several of these stations were positioned quite near towns and cities; this particular localization brings so many confounding variables to the table. As well all know, just because statistics can show that something is significant, it does not mean that it can be generalizable to the whole planet.

I recently read articles about how the efforts made by our government to reduce greenhouse gases are very expensive and so far do not provide good results. I can’t help but think about how all the money our government is investing is ending up in the hands of big companies that are connected with clean energies business. Can you imagine what that will mean for you and me?  The average tax-paying citizen will have to contribute even more with even higher taxes to balance the reckless economic decisions. One can clearly see how a small group of people has so much to gain from the mass hysteria caused by global warming.

What if climate change is really happening? Could it really be our fault? Global temperatures have been going up and down throughout Earth’s history; there were times in the beginning of human civilization when it was warmer than it is now. We adapted to decreases in temperature, I am quite certain we can adapt to anything our future brings us.

In my opinion, global warming is just hype. Our government seems to support it, but we have to ask ourselves, why are the authorities so reticent when it comes to looking at the whole picture? I think we should not just believe everything we are being showed. I question issues that are presented to me like supreme truths. In the end, we all know that people in power will do almost everything to reach their ends. Information is our power and knowledge about our geological history can lead us to the truth.