I just received the following email today, as did many other Tea party groups:
(Newsflash: Check out the 3rd comment below)
Dear Tea Party Polluters,
You Tea Party people need to learn a thing or two about Global Warming. Everyday living is destructive to the Environment. Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet. There are a few other things you can do in addition to buying Carbon Credits, though. One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES. Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet.
For the sake of the planet, we need to act before its too late.
Please visit our company’s website for more information. http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html
Vice President, Public Relations
I responded, Thank you Daphne..
…for demonstrating how much work we have to do, to properly educate people on the myth of man-made global warming. At least for your own sake, please read the following.
Humans are not the enemies of God’s Creation. Except for our overabundant use of plastics, our general unwillingness to recycle, and the snail’s pace at which we’re developing alternate energy sources to power our cars, the average human bean is far less damaging to the environment than the global warming alarmists have led us to believe. Radical environmentalists are ignoring scientifically supported data to promote their agenda and persuade people that polar ice caps are melting from man’s extracurricular expulsions, and catastrophe is imminent. Most people would agree that humans – well, mostly fossil fuel-burning factories and manufacturing plants that dump their toxic waste into our drinking water (or bury it in our backyards) – have been very poor stewards of the earth and its enormous wealth of resources. A little scare to get people to begin acting responsibly and care more about the environment might otherwise be a good thing. However, using fraudulent means to justify an imaginary positive end is simply not responsible. The expense to bring about a less than negligible change, if it were possible, is mind-boggling.
Al Gore, of global warming infamy, asked Tom Wiggly from the Center for Atmospheric Research, if all nations signed a global initiative to reduce global warming, what would be the effect in 50 years? Mr. Wiggly demonstrated a possible 7/100th of one degree Celsius reduction in temperature. In the meantime, America’s defeated Climate Security Act would have imposed trillions of additional taxes on Americans. New Yorkers should remember Senator Chuckie Schumer voted “Yay” – in favor of imposing trillions for a possible fraction of one degree temperature reduction in 50 years – the next time they go to the polls. Hillary the Carpetbagger Clinton just abstained, so I’m not exactly sure what we were paying her for. Kyoto has already cost around $150 billion, while only hypothetically reducing the average earth’s temperature by 0.0015 degrees Centigrade. At this rate, we can expect to spend $100 trillion over the next 667 years to possibly reduce the earth’s temperature by one degree.9
We’re told there is a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, and due in large part to automobile emissions of CO2, but the “science” of global warming is far from settled.
“In fact, 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, or environmental scientists, who are in a position to understand the global warming issues, have signed the following statement:
‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.’”10
Carbon dioxide represents only 5% of all greenhouse gases (95% is water vapor), and we know there are plenty of other factors that contribute to CO2 releases – like volcanic eruptions which are said to release 145-255 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. A single cow produces 350 L of methane gas and 1500 L of carbon dioxide every day, from farting and burping!11 While the current wisdom assures us that a release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the earth’s warming, of oceans in particular (which are loaded with CO2), is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere – not vice-versa.
According to data from paleoclimatology, including ice core samples, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, it would seem we are entering something akin to an Ice Age. Some scientists actually believe a looming and large, sudden and inevitable decrease in global temperatures will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable.12 However this odd panic over the problematic threat of Anthropogenic (or human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) seems to be taking center stage.
Everyone recognizes the earth’s temperature has risen over the last 150 years. Only the more rational among us are just not sure a rise of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880 is enough to become unglued. Few scientists really know enough to determine definitive causes of increases in the earth’s temperature. However, scientists have been documenting variations in the electromagnetic fields of the sun since that time, and have found that sunspot cycles correspond to an increase in temperature. Us lay people know them as solar flares. When there is an increase in solar activity, there is an increase in temperature. Also, weather fluctuations can be attributed to deforestation, urbanization, emission of aerosols, and changes in ocean circulation and wind systems. (*)
In October of 2007, the High Court in London identified nine errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, in defense of schoolchildren who were being required to view the documentary.
“The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” [emphasis added]13
When I learned a teacher in our middle school was showing An Inconvenient Truth in her English classes, I had little choice but to object. I simply suggested the teacher show both sides of the issue, to which she said she would consider the matter, and then promptly crossed it off her To-Do List. This began a series of unfruitful discussions with the superintendent, who has apparently been bamboozled like so many others. Much like science, I believe that education should be about objective inquiry. Somehow, both the teacher and the superintendent believed that by saying “There is another side to the issue,” that the teacher was being objective – even though she didn’t present any bit of the opposing view! Thankfully, the teacher has discontinued showing the video, but the superintendent is still considering the matter.
The Science and Public Policy Institute has published an important report called “35 Inconvenient Truths: The Errors in Al Gore’s Movie,” which itemizes 35 egregious “scientific errors and exaggerations” in what some are calling Al Gore’s “crocumentary.” Probably the most alarming of Al Gore’s claims warns that the melting of West Antarctica or Greenland will raise the sea level by 2o feet, submerging coastlines which are home to 100 million people, while inferring this will all happen within the next 50 years. But according to calculations made by the IPCC, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the melting of these two ice sheets combined will add a little over 2.5 inches in the next 100 years. Gore exaggerated the official estimate by 10,000%. Even stopglobalwarming.com suggests a sea level rise of only six feet in the next 100 years, though they offer no evidence to back up even this claim.
Another glaring error is Al Gore’s assertion that polar bears are dying from swimming long distances to find ice that has now melted away, due to global warming. He has used the image of a polar bear adrift on a sheet of ice to illustrate its fight for survival. Looking stranded and forlorn, unable to properly traverse the terrain because of melting ice caps, an actual look at the facts tells a very different story. Evidence shows the polar bear population has actually tripled in size over the past 40 years. Polar bears swim. A slight warming trend makes it easier for them to catch fish. Easily satisfied, they’ve nothing to do but roll around, play, look cute and make babies. Warmer temperatures also have the benefit of producing longer growing seasons in colder northern climates. In addition, since more people die from exposure to cold than from exposure to heat, lives could be saved as a result. Strapping the world with high energy costs, as is necessitated by Kyoto and other energy-saving initiatives proposed by those who believe the claims of man-made global warming, may have the desired effect of limiting energy consumption, but will also have the effect of people dying in their homes. The elderly on fixed incomes will simply turn off their heat. This scenario may seem acceptable to people living in Florida or California, but not in New York or Maine. Today, it is April 7th, and 10 minutes from Buffalo, it’s snowing and the temperature is 25 degrees.
Continuing to allow the dictates of a radical environmentalist worldview, unsupported by solid scientific evidence, threatens to harm the most vulnerable and helpless – the world’s poor.
“We have at least one million Africans dying each year because of a lack of access to electricity. We have Africans dying by the hundreds of thousands, mostly children, because we’ve got poor people burning wood and dung in huts, which cause respiratory illnesses, which kill mostly children. Meanwhile, these people can’t have electricity because environmentalists, that don’t even live in Africa, put pressure on their governments and don’t let them build hydroelectric dams that could give them electricity and save their lives. So basically, what’s happening is we are sacrificing the poor at the altar of radical environmentalism.”14
At a time when trillion dollar deficits have thrown the world into wholesale economic crises, now is not the time to wage war on humankind to try and avert a slight, cyclical increase in the earth’s temperature. Okay, the time is never ripe for such colossal waste. A large and growing number of scientists are finding that temperature increases are causing natural CO2 releases, and reject the notion that CO2 releases are the cause of warming. Yet we’re constantly being bombarded by unscientific and unsupported alarmism, from those who expect to benefit the most from it. Enormous amounts of money stand to flow into the coffers of research institutions, scientists, and those that control the markets. At a World Economic Forum in January of this year, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said this:
“I don’t think that there is any global warming … I don’t see the statistical data for that … I’m afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world … I’m more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself. I’m sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them …Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement.” 15
I’ve really only touched on a couple of the more glaring points in hopes of better equipping people with information to refute this new theology of global warming. God said there would come a time that people would elevate the creation over the creature. Clearly, only a debased mind would be willing to sacrifice human lives and untold trillions of dollars to bring about a possible insignificant change. I encourage you to go to www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org and use the additional references provided to research the matter, and draw your own conclusions. It’s important for Christians and non-Christians alike to have a balanced view, and to not take a reactionary approach. God made man stewards over His creation, and to do whatever is within our means to honor that trust and protect our precious resources. These may include not only recycling, using reusable bags at the market, getting a water filter and purchasing a hybrid vehicle if able, but also, perhaps, interceding in the political indoctrination of schoolchildren and objecting to the misallocation of revenue and other resources, intended to promote this new theology.
Written by a sensible, divinely created Tea Partier in 2009….
Excerpted from the as yet unpublished book Tough Love: Faith in Politics by Jul Thompson, Chapter 6