How many times over the last 14 ½ months have we heard of a new crisis that the federal government must address now?

“The economy is in a crisis.  We must pass stimulus legislation now and fix this by taking over the major investment houses, banking, and the domestic automobile industry.  Only the federal government can resolve this crisis!”

“The housing industry is in a crisis.  We must pass credit legislation now and fix this by bailing out people who are about to lose their homes to foreclosure.  Only the federal government can resolve this crisis!”

“The healthcare industry is in a crisis.  We must pass healthcare legislation now and fix this by taking over the insurance and medical industries.  Only the federal government can resolve this crisis!”

“The environment is in a crisis.  We must pass cap and trade legislation now and fix this by eliminating our dependency on fossil fuels and build a green energy economy.  Only the federal government can resolve this crisis!”

Is a pattern unfolding?  Could they all be a part of a much larger plan?

 

I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.

– John Holdren, While House science czar

Wealthier nations such as ours, whether that wealth be measured in terms of financial resources, national defense resources, or (in Holdren’s argument) energy resources, must relinquish some of that wealth in order for poorer nations to “become more prosperous.”  Cap and Trade legislation to reduce carbon emissions is, among other things, a vehicle by which the federal government can regulate, and ultimately destroy, our domestic (conventional fossil fuel) energy industry, make us weaker as a nation, and redistribute our wealth to less successful societies.

Economic initiatives are justified with science.  Albeit a social science, the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes offer the foundation by which massive government spending is justified.  The failure of such spending to revive the economy has begun to undermine the theories of Keynes, and his science is losing its credibility.

Climate control legislation is similarly justified with science.  That science, too, has of late been similarly discredited.  Climatologists, who have screamed about anthropogenic global warming, the characteristic warming of the earth as a result of human activity, have been publicly humiliated as their data and its conclusions have been demonstrated to have been falsified.  Acting generally under the now discredited, Nobel prize winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climatologists have received funding to “prove” that human activity is causing the earth’s temperature to, on average, steadily increase, and have vindicated their findings by having it reviewed by their “peers,” like minded climatologists who have also received such research funding.  Their private correspondence was revealed, and much of their data had been “lost.”

From a recent update in Der Spiegel:

Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?

Life has become “awful” for Phil Jones. Just a few months ago, he was a man with an enviable reputation: the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an expert in his field and the father of an alarming global temperature curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

Those days are now gone.

Nowadays, Jones, who is at the center of the “Climategate” affair involving hacked CRU emails, needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.

His days are now shaped by investigative commissions at the university and in the British Parliament. He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. The Internet is full of derisive remarks about him, as well as insults and death threats. “We know where you live,” his detractors taunt.

Jones is finished: emotionally, physically and professionally. He has contemplated suicide several times recently, and he says that one of the only things that have kept him from doing it is the desire to watch his five-year-old granddaughter grow up.

Much of the American public is ignorant of these developments, because the “mainstream media,” which blindly supports this administration’s efforts, has not reported it.  As such, the President and his Congress continue to justify their actions and their legislative agenda on its basis.

New studies reported today would suggest that the climatic changes we are seeing are natural.  It’s the sun, stupid!

Northern Europe experienced an unusually harsh winter of 2009.  For that matter, so did Louisiana, but this report indicates that scientists have demonstrated that lessened solar activity affected the jet stream in such a manner as to cause northern Europe to experience their bitter winter.  Active solar activity = warming.  Reduced solar activity = cooling.  And there’s nothing man is doing to cause it, nor is there anything we can do to stop it.

It’s time to put an end to the misrepresentation of climatology and its misuse by radical governments.  As Fred Singer of American Thinker suggested today,

Only a thorough investigation will be able to document that there was really no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented record is based on data manipulation involving the selection of certain weather stations (and the omission of others that showed no warming), plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating. 

 

How to confirm this? The only possibility may be an investigation by the U.S. Congress. Not this Congress, of course. But after the November 2010 elections, control of important committees like Science may change. Hearings that use real experts can then unravel ClimateGate, demonstrate the manipulation of temperature data, and once and for all destroy the “warming trend” on which the IPCC has based its fanciful conclusion of anthropogenic global warming .

 

Once accomplished, it will become possible to do away with the myth that CO₂ is a pollutant and all of the controls and regulations that are based on this mistaken notion. Yes, that includes EPA’s Endangerment Finding on CO₂ and all cap-and-tax legislation. The nation, and indeed the world, will be better off.

Yet again we see the importance of the conservative movement taking back Congress.  We have to get rid of Lindsay Graham (r-SC) and the progressive asses he rode in on!

America cannot prosper utilizing solar panels and windmills as our primary energy sources.  But America’s prosperity is not the objective of our current leadership.  Their objective is to redistribute our wealth to other nations, and to redistribute our power to a centralized government that they control.

And it must be done now!