Obama and Gore: The CO2 Global Warming Hoax
Rob ChambersPeople can look back over their lifetime and recall extreme weather conditions like floods, ice storms, tornados, tsunamis, and hurricanes. Are these weather conditions natural or human induced? There are two primary theories used to explain extreme changes in climate.
The first theory indicates humans are responsible for global warming because of man’s use of fossil fuels for energy. This theory, having been disproven for some time now, continues to fuel the global warming agenda of both the Obama administration and Al Gore.
Such political forces continue to use this disproven theory to motivate the public – out of fear – to willingly succumb to higher taxes so that Obama can create and Gore can benefit from government subsidized businesses that manufacture “green technology” like electric cars, solar shingles, and windmills.
The global warming debate began with a research paper written in 1957 by Dr. Roger Revelle. He made a correlation between increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), and warming of the earth. (CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal, gasoline, and diesel.) He thought that as fossil fuel consumption increases so does the earth’s temperature.
Although this sounds like a reasonable argument, no good scientific evidence supports the alarming link between CO2 and global warming as indicated by Obama and Gore. In fact, this theory has been disproven in light of historical warming and cooling trends.
Two historical periods have experienced global warming in absence of the production of CO2: the “Roman Warming Period” (200 B.C. — 600 A.D.) and the “Medieval Warming Period” (950 A.D. — 1350 A.D.). Roman chariots didn’t run on gas and neither did medieval waterwheels and windmills.
Another defeating blow to the CO2 hoax is that the earth experienced a significant cooling period from the 1940s to the late 1970s. This cooling period is when fossil fuel consumption and CO2 levels were on the rise.
So what caused the earth to warm when fossil fuels were not used for energy, and what caused the earth to cool when they were?
Danish scientists have recently proven a cause for this change in global temperature. They discovered a relationship between the sun’s output (radiant energy and solar wind) and the earth’s temperature. Without going into great detail, as solar wind increases, so does the earth’s temperature, and vice versa. This explains the global warming trend when mankind was not producing CO2, as in the Roman and Medieval warming periods, and the cooling period when CO2 production was on the rise in the 20th Century.
Even with scientific proof that CO2 does not cause climate change, politicians now want to turn a blind eye to the condemning evidence against them and continue pointing their finger to you and punish you as the culprit of global warming. Why? The answer is money, politics, and power.
The current administration’s plan is to use the CO2 hoax to create a new “green industry” that a market-based economy will not support, and force taxpayers to foot the bill for it’s creation.
Unfortunately, legislation that will help accomplish Obama’s goal has already passed the U.S. House, but the Senate has not yet voted on it. (Tell MS Senators Cochran and Wicker to vote no on H.R. 2454.)
So, who will be counting your tax dollars while tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis persist?
Al Gore, a former student of Dr. Revelle, is also a member of the venture capitol firm Kleiner Perkins in CA. The firm’s goal is to be a leader in the “green economy”, but Gore is a politician. Why has a venture capitol firm hired a politician to help “fund” a new green tech industry?
Gore and others could stand to profit greatly from the CO2 hoax if U.S. legislation like H.R. 2454 passes. This bill will impose utility taxes that will increase electric rates 90% by 2035. The tax revenue will be passed on to investors of green tech businesses “to help reduce CO2 emissions”. This is only the beginning; we haven’t even gotten to what Obama wants to do with your house.
There’s nothing wrong with green technology, but using doomsday global warming fear and bad science as a tool to deceive and pillage taxpayers just to make investors in “green technology” wealthy is all together another thing.
In the end, regardless of CO2 production, extreme changes in the climate will persist. The only difference between then and now if “green tech” wins is that taxpayers may have a windmill in their back yard, but they will pay higher taxes, have bigger government, and make investors in green technology rich.