The Global Warming Church builds a Boat

If the Global Warming Church can make a more accurate statement on the hypocrisy and religious aspect of their movement, I’ll be surprised.

Environmental activists are building a replica of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat—where the biblical vessel is said to have landed after the great flood—in an appeal for action on global warming, Greenpeace said Wednesday.

Read the short article.

Just how many CO² eating trees are these morons cutting down for this project, anyway?

There is an argument preached by the Global Warming Church, that even if the current theories of anthropogenic global warming are wrong, we should take action anyway, because the risk is too great. I’ll make a counter proposal to this argument. I say that those preaching the massive, unsupported stupidity of the Global Warming Church are a danger to the human race and even if they are not, we should wipe them out anyway, because the risk is too great.

Neither is a statement of science - both are statements of politics.

Until this debate is waged in scientific fashion, using sound scientific principals, it is but a shell game.

Let’s put it all simply: If it is true that there is a demonstrated cause and effect relationship between CO² levels and global warming, then we ought to be able to isolate the sources of atmospheric CO² that we generate and make proper decisions, based on scientific analysis, as to what to do about those sources. We can use the tools of science to clean up or minimize the problem. This is not what the GWC is spewing, however. Instead, political attacks are made on some industrialized countries, in sweeping efforts, while other nations with even larger problems of pollution in general are ignored. This is a political effort, with political motivation, barren of reasonable action. Even the $5 billion spent on global warming research last year in the USA, was not aimed at research on how to combat global warming, but on climate studies themselves, all trying to predict new environmental disasters.

Take a look at Carbon Credits, for an example of the politics involved. Just what is a Carbon Credit, anyway? A Carbon Credit (CC) purchased, allows the purchasing agent to emit one tonne of CO².

Wikipedia further defines the process: International treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol set quotas on the amount of greenhouse gases countries can produce. Countries, in turn, set quotas on the emissions of businesses. Businesses that are over their quotas must buy carbon credits for their excess emissions, while businesses that are below their quotas can sell their remaining credits. By allowing credits to be bought and sold, a business for which reducing its emissions would be expensive or prohibitive can pay another business to make the reduction for it. This minimizes the quota’s impact on the business, while still reaching the quota.

On the surface, this looks equitable. If you can’t afford to fix your problem, you pay someone else to fix theirs, which allows the overall CO² emission regulations to be met. Under the surface, it doesn’t work. The best description of the real workings of Carbon Credit I’ve ever found is an article by Gene Logsdon, from the The Progressor Times. It’s quite short. Take the time to read it and understand just what a scam this is.

Furthermore, there is real pressure on the developing nations of the world to use “sustainable” energy sources, such as solar and wind, to produce their progressing energy needs - in spite of the fact that many of these nations have abundant coal or oil resources. The Global Warming Church doesn’t want them to use these resources, but to purchase the far more expensive solar and wind solutions, so that they won’t contribute to anthropogenic CO² emissions. On the flip side the Global Warming Church is more than willing to allow other nations to buy those same fossil fuel resources for their own use, as long as they pay the carbon tax on it.

The developing nation under this regime is screwed twice. Not only would they end up selling their own fossil fuels to the large industrialized nations still burning them, but they then have to purchase the far more expensive solar and wind technologies from those same countries to produce their own energy.

In any case, solar and wind provide less than 1% of the current energy production of the world and this is not going to change anytime soon.

The final score in all this, is that Carbon Credit bankers are in this for the money. They could give a damn about the environment. The Carbon Credit system protects the rich from having to change their lifestyles, while it penalizes the poor, yet again, for being poor.