The Leading Cause of Conflict over the Next 20 Years: Climate Change?

In a not so veiled attempt to push through another nanny state piece of legislation, the Democrats are bulking up their efforts to build the case for Carbon Taxing and other sweeping environmental controls. In doing so, CA Sen. Boxer (D) stated that the biggest threat to world security over the next twenty years is going to be climate change. Let's investigate this claim.

A look at recent conflicts will support the claim that conflicts arise for two main reasons: revolution and/or resources. In the post WWII era the world has been witness to countless armed conflicts on nearly every continent. Within the last twenty years, to provide scope of argument, the following conflicts existed:

1. Gulf War - Iraq invades Kuwait for fuel resources. Significant US resource impact - US leads war to retake Kuwait.
2. Congo Wars - US pulls support for Zaire dictator (put in place to combat communism in Africa) and revolution commenced. US not involved in conflict.
3. Chechen Wars - After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the break up of satellite states in Eastern Europe, traditional Russian territories declared independence and revolution commenced. Russia fought for resources against a revolutionary population, claiming Chechens had no legitimate claim to the territory independent from Russia.
4. Kargil War - India and Pakistan fight for land resources for strategic advantages in the Kashmir region. No US involvement.
5. Kosovo and Yugoslov Wars - a series of conflicts of revolution in a post Soviet bloc country. US NATO involvement.
6. Civil wars in Rwanda, Algeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, East Timor, Czechoslovakia, Chad, Nepal, Liberia
7. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for resources/political reason by the US
8. Israel-Palestinian conflicts - including Lebanon attacks, Intifada, Gaza conflicts, etc for Land resources and revolution by the Palestinians
9. Russian invasion of Georgia - civil conflict turned international for land resource reasons by Russia
10. Genocide in Sudan - race war between Black Africans and Arabs for land resources

There are many other conflicts not listed for reasons of brevity, but the consistent cause of conflict remains true: resource or revolution. If the Senator from California is attempting to conclude that Global Warming/Climate Change is going to cause a shortage of resources, thus be the cause of violence, I would argue that constant variation in weather patterns has been cause for population movement and/or adaptation to meet the living needs, and is no new concept. To make the claim that climate, not overpopulation in limited resource regions, is a leading factor is simply propaganda.

Furthermore, I would conclude that the greatest struggle in the next twenty years is NOT going to be caused by climate change, rather by revolution due to failed world economic and police state ventures. Economic power shifts will shun failing economic giants and favor those industrial giants rising to power. The power shift will weaken influences over certain regions and lead to shifting borders and alliances. As the Untied States loses the ability to defend allies, new alliances will have to be formed around the world in order for other countries and regions to best defend their interests and resources. The climate plays no role in these most likely scenarios.

Resources will continue to be scarce in regions with little to begin with - North Africa and regions within the middle east. Wars in these regions, however, are likely to be religious and race based rather than resource based. Such revolutionary class wars/conflicts, I predict, will lend to one of two conclusions: a strong Middle East with greater world influence under a United banner (The Islamic Union), or a perpetually war torn region of political conflict and eventual nuclear war.

In all cases, climate change is of least concern over the next twenty years as the leading cause of international conflict. Be not fooled by the death throws of the Nanny State liberals desperately attempting to ram propaganda and their unconstitutional agenda down the throat of America (and the world). Simple observation and trend analysis, as well as a little logic and reason are useful in annihilating their fanciful theories and leftist agenda.

Global Warming Nuttary - Just had to share!

After feeling so uninspired that I figured it was time to throw in the towel for 2009, an email debate got my juices flowing for at least one more post. The following is my response to an e-mail debate regarding the Copenhagen Global Climate Change meeting and the potential treaty. I will not post the e-mail that kicked this off... my response stands on its own two feet.
.............................................................

Science is not about consensus. It is about right or wrong. The ‘vast majority’ of the world’s scientific community has absolutely NO proof that humanity is the cause of climate change. ‘Warmers’ pick and choose data that supports their special interest, the same as others do to support their source of funding (be it oil, or other). When ALL the data is looked at, there is absolutely no correlation between global temperature and humanity. If there was, there would be a steady increase in temperature, yet we are finding ourselves within a current 11 year cooling trend. The focus of environmentalism should be better stewardship of the land, sea, and air; but let’s at least be truthful in what we are propping up as fact.

For example, polar ice has receded to current levels in the past – even more so. Those caps grew back – and in fact around the world and at the poles, glaciers are GROWING, getting thicker, and advancing (though at slower rates). This is not reported because it doesn’t support the political agenda. (ref http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm for glacial data). What happens is that a report comes out suggesting drastic sea ice missing – chalk it up to Global Warming, as reported above the fold on the front page and recited by politicians and pro-warmers – THEN they report at a later date that they “underreported arctic ice by 193,000 square miles” – the truth, not news worthy at all… in fact, the rate of arctic and Antarctic ice freezing is increasing, when ALL data is accurately reported – and ocean levels are falling because of it. What is happening is that as the extremities erode, the glacial ice is getting thicker at the interior. Ref:

Antarctica's Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is growing:
7 Dec 05 – Scientists Joughin and Bamber re-evaluated the mass balances of the ice in Antarctica. "It is clear from the results of this study that the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is not rapidly, or even slowly, wasting away. Quite to the contrary, it is
growing."

Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding, Arctic ice cover above it’s
30-year average:23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening and expanding".

So, they report on global climate change – but continue to push “warming” agendas, including capping greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries. There is a reason that India and China are not going to sign onto a Copenhagen deal – they admit that it will be economic suicide, and that they will not be able to advance their societies from third world into first world civilizations. Hell, the warmers have now identified Carbon Dioxide as a toxic gas – but we EXHALE CO2… and it is not reported that plant growth is actually rapidly increasing due to increased atmospheric CO2 (be it man made or other). So the plants that we live on are enriched with their source of nutrition and grow heartier and stronger, yet this is a bad thing… We are still assuming the madness that humanity is responsible for the majority of CO2 – but what scientific data ACTUALLY finds is that worldwide percentages of CO2 emissions from humans (and human related activity) is merely 3% of annual worldwide CO2 emissions. THREE PERCENT. Hardly newsworthy.

Regarding the severity of catastrophic weather, I say ‘prove it’. Storms like Katrina are only newsworthy because they hit a section of the US where population centers were established BELOW SEA LEVEL, and where there existed a need for updated levee systems and pumping stations to ensure no flooding. Since Katrina, there have been no noteworthy tropical depressions, and they occurred regularly depending on natural oceanic cycles. Major storms in the Oceania nations of the Western Pacific (in East Asia) are no worse than previous, and flooding related to these storms is simply a cause of extremely steep mountain sides rising out of the ocean, causing storms to hit a wall and dump everything they have got. It is common… but there have been no unusual super tropical storms. That is pure fiction. Regarding increased cold weather systems – definitely NOT due to warming, rather following the recent trend of global cooling which some scientists believe is the early phases of a new ice age (as has been reported since the 1970’s). So again, I say ‘prove it’ if you think there is any actual proof of increased catastrophic weather.

Deforestation is a problem in developing countries. There needs to be smart forest services, which are most effective when forests are managed by private industries, like Weyerhaeuser. What I am more concerned about is ocean acidity and the elimination of marine life. There seems to be little regard for the destruction of the oceanic ecosystems and the breakdown of that food chain. When the world freezes over once again, it will be the waters that provide most of the food – which is the very reason that all early civilizations developed near water. It is the source of life. The ocean produces more air filtration and oxygen production than the world’s forests. However, t-shirts with little algae are less appealing to ‘the cause’ than sloths and polar bears.

Constitutionality is not a non sequitur when the government is selling personal liberties and mandating global taxation via international treaties supporting false science. It is most important. The government has no authority to relinquish certain liberties, the freedom to exhale without global taxation is one – and the other is forcing the citizens of the United States into control of unelected authorities. This is the very issue being proposed in Copenhagen now, and it is very relevant to the topic at hand.

I do not see value in permanent international treaties such as NATO etc as you listed. They are unrepresented forms of government, and in their very nature tyrannical. We should lead by example, and as a nation conceived in liberty, we should lead as such.

China and India will never sign up to such a treaty, and have said so repeatedly. It inhibits their ability to grow their economy. With no actual evidence of human caused warming, China and India are actually standing up against the international community to my applause. Do I think that there is a limit to what toxins can be expelled into the atmosphere? Yes. But for the sake of clean air (particulate free), clean water, clean land… not for the sake of false science and ‘climate change’ nuttary! There should be particulate limits on factories – reducing acid rains and “sooty” skies. This has nothing to do with CO2 in general, but has more to do with actual ecosystem toxins, like arsenic, chlorine, mercury, etc. That takes into account water and land as well, limiting the type, amount, and retention requirements of toxic chemicals. What good is the air, land, or water if we cannot breathe, live, nor drink. Again – all having to do with pollution and quality of life, not backed by false scientific theory.

In a perfect world we would all be so enlightened as to act in the best interest of the world and our fellow man. However, politicized climate debate serves no purpose of being in anyone’s best interest, rather it is a ploy to establish unchecked powers granted to an untouchable board of rulers. This is not in anyone’s best interest. We agree that the wars are unnecessary, and that our resources are best spent elsewhere (or not spent by the government at all). However, you can create all the green jobs you like – if there is no money to procure a product, the effort is futile. Production does precede consumption, but the cost of production cannot be eternally subsidized by taxpayer dollars or increased national debt… there is no pay-off and the economy will be (and is being) destroyed.

In summary – man made global warming is a theory not a fact, a multitude of scientific data indicates that the earth is cooling and that we may be entering a new ice age, and humanity has a responsibility to be stewards of the environment but must not surrender personal liberties to unrepresentative authoritarian governments in order to achieve that end.
.....................................................

Again, I may not be blogging regularly until 2010 - but this one just lit a fire under my rear and I had to share my response. I guess I'm never too busy to give 'em hell, even when I am relaxing... what a way to recharge, eh?

Global Warming Debunked, E-Mails Leaked

Having reported a number of times in the past (here, here, here) on scientific data that does not support any claim for man made global warming, I feel obligated to report the end of the debate. E-mails recovered from hacked accounts detail "tricks" used to discard data that disproved the theory of Man Made Global Warming.

The tricks specifically included fudging the numbers to make data appear to be trending in the manner of Global Warming - however, a decade long Global Cooling trend has left many supporters scratching their heads wondering if they missed something... and they did - the truth.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth is not so true afterall, though it is very inconvenient. As John Stewart reported "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

A Sleeping Star? The Sun Just Wont Wake Up...

"Whatever happens", notes NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, "the sun is behaving in an interesting way and I believe we're about to learn something new."

NASA is reporting that the current solar minimum is so deep, and reflects a measurable decline in magnetic activity on the sun, reducing solar weather activity.

The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.
Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The
quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to
wonder, are sunspots disappearing?

The loss of solar spots is a significant concern for modern humanity. As we live in an ever increasing technological world, space radiation and magnetic storms play major roles in security and safety of our electronic infrastructure and public health. Being able to predict solar storms and early detection allow some protection from magnetic storm power grid failures.

What is more of a concern is the global impact of a "sleeping sun".

The sun lives on an eleven year "solar cycle" with peak max and min solar activity measuring about 11 years on average between peaks. A typical solar minimum lasts about 485 days... we are currently at 735 days, with 80% of days in 2009 being "blank sun" days, meaning no sunspots. The last time we were in such a deep minimum was 100 years ago... however, the last time the sun has been this blank was during the Maunder Minimum of the 17th and 18th centuries - a 70 year solar minimum. 200 years earlier the sun spent 90 years in the Sporer Minimum. Since the early 20th century the sun has been in what is referred to as the Modern Maximum, after the previously mentioned lull.


Like the subsequent Maunder Minimum, the Spörer Minimum coincided with a time when Earth's climate was colder than average.

December 6, 2001 - Release No. 01-111
THE SUN'S CHILLY IMPACT ON EARTH
A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400's to the 1700's and triggered a "Little Ice Age" in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period...

During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715, there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity. Known as the Maunder Minimum, astronomers of the time observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period as opposed to a more typical 40-50,000 spots

Did you catch that?

Historical trends indicate that decreased energy output from the sun results in global temperature minimums, also known as "Little Ice Ages", though global warming supporters indicate that the sun has little to nothing to do with global temperatures - remember, to them global and solar activity are constant.

What is more important than arguing the specifics of global temperature variations is the survival of mankind. Food sustains life. Without food, our population will have to decrease to match the available food output. With warmer temperatures a wider variety of foods can be grown at more extreme locations (i.e. further north or south near the poles). As the globe gets cooler, we lose the ability to grow larger and more varied crops. We lose the ability to feed ourselves. Especially since our society is basing it's existence on "grocery" and less on personal farming, we largely lose the ability to independently sustain our way of life.

Another major factor that will impact humanity is increased cosmic radiation. Solar winds, the product of increased activity on the sun, expands our "heliosphere" - a solar system wide area of influence made by our sun. It is within this "sphere" where the sun is the predominant source of space weather, and galactic winds are largely warded off. You wouldn't know it, but we live within the atmosphere of our sun... and when that atmosphere is weakened, cosmic radiation is allowed to reach the earth's atmosphere with greater energy... allowing more cosmic radiation to reach the surface of the earth, increasing our exposure to harmful high energy radiation.

The global cooling trend, as well as NASA's speculation about the potential for a new solar minimum should strike much more fear into the heart of mankind than "Global Warming". Remember one thing: it is not unlikely that the earth will drastically cool. In fact the "zero point" temperature on which the Global Warmers are basing their data is nowhere near the historical average temperature of the earth... see below: If you think the earth will be in a bad way with a 2 degree Celsius increase, imagine a return to "normal" represented by a global temperature decrease of 6 degrees C. F = (9/5)C + 32

Before we tear our economy apart over a theory of global temperature increase, let us first consider the impact of an inactive sun, an increase of cosmic radiation, and a drastically colder planet earth. Mammoth burgers, anyone?

CA's Global Warming Laws ban... PIRATE of CARIBBEAN SHIP?!?

Washington State's "Lady Washington", the Pirate Ship featured in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and the Official State ship of Washington, has officially been banned from sailing in the waters of California's SF Bay area.

4,442 Square feet of wind power, green as it may be, was not enough to save this piece of living history from the grips of radical idealogs.

The reason? The Lady Washington also employs a 60 year old diesel engine which exceeds limits of emissions under California's clean air laws.

Nearly 100,000 visitors / tourists to the ship last winter, and taking 7,000 school children to sea under the power of the wind is not enough to save this not-for-profit venture. Now, unless the ship can come up with $100,000 to replace the dependable Korean War era engine with a newer "green" diesel, the Pirate Ship will forever be banned from the waters of California.

So much for dominant fire power... I guess Sacramento is slightly out of reach of those cannons... and reality.

Canceling the California voyages means no school trips, no tourist excursions and no ticket revenue for the nonprofit Grays Harbor Historic Seaport Authority, which depends on that income to keep the ship running.

Bolton acknowledges there is some irony in pollution laws that effectively ban a historic sailing ship, especially one with Hollywood credentials. But his response is somewhat philosophical.

"Government is supposed to treat everybody equally," he said. "And, when it comes to air pollution, what difference does it make if your vessel is carrying school kids or tourists?"

We risk losing this treasure all in the name of government lunacy. Let us hope that private funds can be raised to convert the ship's engines... lest we lose the ability to fund the basic upkeep of the ship, and lose a state treasure here in Washington!

Lou Dobbs Show: Global Warming Arrogant

First it was "Global Warming"... Now the Environmentalnuts are claiming that it is "Global Weirding" which can be used to explain the weather patterns around the world...however, many meteorological scientists are now starting to question the mainstream idea of global warming - in fact, as is seen on this video clip, that the GLOBE IS ENTERING A COOLING PHASE.
History shows us in periods of global warming, societies tend to prosper, disease subsides, food supplies increase, and the overall quality of live is improved... comparatively, during periods of global cooling food supplies diminish, epidemic/pandemic cases of sickness are reported, and quality of life is generally decreased.

One thing is common, and grossly misunderstood - the globe is ALWAYS EITHER warming or cooling... there has NEVER been a stationary period... there has always been a pattern, always been a change - and it has NEVER been caused by humans or any other creature inhabiting this planet.

We should do better to understand how to best adapt to minor temperature changes - such as encouraging hardy crops that perform well in either climate, and raising livestock that performs the same... To think that we can put some sort of super absorbing pad into the sky and grab greenhouse gasses is not only insane, but will be devastating should we accomplish it, ensuring a significant global cooling / ice age that is sure to wipe out most of humanity from the face of the earth.

Thought - something that global warming nuts are not too quick to embrace.

We Didn't Start the Fire...

Images of Polar Bears frantically attempting to cling to vanishing sea ice haunt the dreams of children around the world. Though polar bear populations are on the rise, they have become the cuddly face of the Global Warming debate.
Yes... I said debate.

I say debate because though there is evidence that there is a warming trend of 0.14 Degrees Celsius per Decade, there is no evidence supporting an accelerated increase in temperatures. That is to say that for the last 100 years, there has been a steady rate of global temperature rise at 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade.

We didn't start the fire... The earth goes through natural temperature fluctuations.

And as a matter of debate, the ice at the southern polar cap in the antarctic is actually increasing because antarctic temperatures have continued to decline over the years. All part of a cycle.

Should we be better stewards of the environment? Absolutely!

Do we cause harm to the environment by way of strip mining and strip malls? You bet!

But as we move forward with this debate and discussion, we must remember that the earth does more to affect itself than we do. Don't believe me? Look at the number one source of pollution in the United States... No, not Hummers, or Exxon Mobile... It is geologic in origin... Mt St Helens outputs more greenhouse gas per year than we tiny beings could ever hope to attempt. Take into account the major geological sources of greenhouse gases, such as Yellowstone, the many northwest volcanoes, and even the methane fields bubbling up off the coast of Florida. More air pollution than we could bat an eye at!

So why the hysteria?

For instance, an Eskimo village in Alaska is suing the oil industry because their village is losing land due to erosion... the cause of erosion? Man Made Global Warming, of course! The village, well, it is built on a barrier reef that has been eroding for over 100 years... but forget taking responsibility for poor location... it is easier to blame and attempt to sue than to take personal responsibility or personal action to save the land from erosion. Here is a look at the great location of the village:


Let me interject here for one moment... anyone who knows anything about living near water knows that water trumps land every time... and erosion is the end result... be it along a river bank or a sandy beach. Water carries a lot of energy able to move rocks. These people have done little to stop the erosion... no attempt to make breakwaters, no attempt to build sound sea walls... Nope. It is easier to place blame and sit back waiting for that check to come in! Put me4 on that island! I would personally carry rocks, one by one if I had to, to create a breakwater capable of stopping the erosion and surviving the winter ice flows. I don't see that happening here!

So why the hysteria about Global Warming?

The Global Warming fascists use tools of ridicule and demoralization to silence any voice of opposition or dissent. What are they afraid of finding if we should be allowed to debate?

Why all the hysteria?

Ok... I'll tell you, but you won't like the answer: Money and Power.

Environmentalists and Global Warming hacks (and legitimate scientists) operate through government grants, largely. If a consensus appeared that "Actually, Global Warming is not that bad", how long do you think they would be employed? Not long... their funding would end.

BUT, if they raise red flags, if they convince the governments of the world that we are solely responsible for our own demise... well, that might be something worth looking into...

So money is thrown into research, funds are raised on behalf of saving the planet... and then the crazy side effect... people start believing what they are hearing, and ignoring all reason and logic (not to mention historical trends), they begin to panic. And behold, who is there to bail them out? Ahh... big brother... solving all our problems for us... Doesn't that make you feel cozy?

Listen to logic, listen to reason. The earth's temperature is never constant... never has been. There is nothing constant about the earth. We are part of a dynamic system, influenced from both within and from outside our planet. From solar energy to earth's own energy, the planet oscillates around some median point, but is never constant. The earth will warm, the earth will then cool. The earth will take care of itself.

We could benefit ourselves more as a human race by adjusting to the changes rather than trying to reverse them. Instead of trying to stop the one straw from breaking the camel's back, couldn't we just remove some of the other straws? It is easier... makes more sense!

We didn't start the fire... it was always burning since the world's been turning. We didn't light it but we're trying to fight it...

Let us be reasonable... yes, clean up the environment... yes, focus on clean energy... yes, do all we can to live in harmony with our planet, creatures, and fellow man.

But blame and admonish ourselves for that which we do not control... come now... let us reason together here!

Bill Ritter v. Global Warming... shame on us?

Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter, has laid out a plan to clean up the air in Colorado. He is attacking Greenhouse Gasses as a new member of the Crusade against "Global Warming".

I am a vocal advocate for environmental conservation, reusable energy, and moral obligations to maintaining resources... but Ritter's motivation seems to be influenced by the "Global Warming" band wagon.

I continue to place "global warming" in quotes because the "science" behind mans involvement in "global climate change" is shaky at best. There are several scientists who supported the theory at it's early conception, but after further review had failed to see any conclusive evidence that "global warming" is being propelled by human intervention.



Having reviewed Ritter's proposal, I would support a number of the ideas... increased personal responsibility, increased focus on alternative energy, and education of the populous on the perils of being poor environmental stewards... however, his plan of education and reduced carbon emissions have a central focus of "Global Warming"...

The debate about environmental conservation, energy independence, and clean air are being hampered by the debate over "global warming"... and to throw in an education plan that specifically teaches about the human cause of "global warming", well, for skeptics like myself, that is where we have to draw the line.

There should be a moral obligation to be good stewards of our environment, passed on by our families and communities... We should strive for alternative energy in a quest to further liberate ourselves from reliance on foreign oils and from reliance on big power industries... we should want to clean the air not because "global warming" threatens to flood our cities and destroy our future, but because we owe it to ourselves to live healthier lives under clean, clear skies.

Ritter's sweeping plan is an extension of the liberal agenda on "global warming", plain and simple.

Instead of working on environmental issues for the sake of moral obligation, the smattering of terms associated with "global warming" in it's focus on human fault are found in abundance in the document.

Though I credit ANY government official willing to champion the cause of energy independence, alternative fuels, and conservation... it all comes down to tact and intent. When you have to use inferred science to force policy, there is something wrong.

You should be able to pose a question to the community:

"Reducing particulate emissions because it will clean up Denver's air, is
it right or wrong?"
"Increasing funding for alternative energy incentives to reduce dependence
on oil, right or wrong?"
"Investing in personal sustainability in the area of energy, right or
wrong?"

Instead, what we get is:

"The world is going to flood, and we are going to be responsible for destroying
the earth for our children and the polar bears. Shame on us!"

So I have to give partial Kudos to Ritter...

But I also have to scold the Republicans for not effectively taking up the cause, and for allowing the liberals agenda to dominate, yet again, another important issue.

Republicans, remember, personal freedom and free market does not give a license to abuse the resources, or take without giving something back. With personal freedom comes moral obligations.

Do what's right.