Climate Change Suppression

One of the things I have enjoyed bringing to the forefront on this blog is stories that do not make the front page but give a deal of insight into our society.  I have been shown to be quite critical of the government, particularly the objectives of the Obama administration in the past few months.  One of those areas of critique is climate change.

I am a firm believer that the earth is more than capable of taking almost anything we could dish out at her and recover quite nicely.  The earth has shown herself to be quite resilient.  Many environmental activists decry the availability of nuclear weapons.  Take a look at Hiroshima, the first city to be attack with a nuclear weapon.  It has a population of 1.1 million and is doing quite well with its Mazda factory accounting for a large percentage of its GDP.

So then can the earth handle pollution?  Fossil fuels (natural resources, not artificial)?  She seems to be doing quite well considering as CO2 emissions go up temperatures have gone down worldwide.  Can man really do much to damage the environment?  If a meteorite really wiped out the dinosaurs the earth must have recovered because we are standing here today.

So what then is the motivation for limiting carbon emissions?  Do Congress and the President really want to protect the environment or is there more at play here?  There has to be more at play and I think there are two things.  The first has to do with political power.  Notice that the vast majority of environmentalists are affiliated with the Democratic party.  In an effort to satisfy that constituency and maintain power the Democratic party is making and effort to pass this legislation.  Without this movement and the power, particularly in money, that they bring to the political table climate change would be a non issue in American politics.

The second is personal power.  Our representatives in Congress do a handful of things for us.  They help make policy and spend our money.  And we all know they are spenders.  Further taxation only increases their power and cap-and-trade is a fantastic example.  By further taxing companies more extensively through cap-and-trade and its increased regulation and taxes they draw more power to themselves.

If our representatives were interested in protecting the environment reports such as this would not be suppressed by the Obama EPA.


11 Responses to Climate Change Suppression

  1. Al Gore says:

    The very example that you used (a meteorite) to point out that the earth will go on despite cataclysmic events seems to undermine your position. The supposed meteorite wiped out the majority of life on the planet and all the dinosaurs. Sure the planet continued, but only after most all life on earth had been killed. The Hiroshima example had similar demerits.

    If we correlate this to present day global warming, we wind up with a disturbing prognosis. Say we do in fact continue polluting, and the earth continues to warm until we face widespread drought, massive hurricanes, and another ice age (how that could happen is still beyond me). Naturally all these things would kill millions at the very least. Just because the earth will continue does not mean that this is a future that we should look forward to. In a similar way, a Hiroshima resident in 1945 would not be comforted by the fact that 64 years after he was to die in an atomic explosion the city would once again be a thriving center of commerce and industry. On the other hand, we should pass legislation to avoid such a future even if “the earth is more than capable of taking almost anything we could dish out at her and recover quite nicely.”

    A much better argument against the global warming zealots is to demonstrate one of two things: 1) That the earth is not indeed getting warmer, and 2) That even if it is getting warmer there is no connection between man-caused carbon-dioxide emissions and global warming. You alluded to these facts but it seemed to be only an aside to your greater – and flawed – argument about the earth’s resilience.

    *Note: Your source that states that there is not a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was an economist, not a scientist. This fact undermines the one satisfactory point you make to draw into question the basis for the Democrats’ climate change agenda.

  2. cowofdoom says:

    Thanks for the tip.

  3. Nancy Pelosi says:

    Mr. CowofDoom,

    This blog entry is unfair to my Democratic party. First, you assert that the primary reason for the party’s attempts to save this world from certain doom at the hands of warmer temperatures (and all the evils that such temperatures will bring), is campaign finance from environmentalists. You leave no room for the possibility that I and other Democrats believe wholeheartedly that climate change is a threat to our wellbeing.

    You also conveniently leave out the possibility that the only reason GOP members are opposed to climate change legislation is campaign finance from large corporations who will likely lose money in order to comply with the measures necessary to stave off global warming. If you assume that Democratic congressmen are motivated purely by campaign finance and reelection then you must assume the same about their Republican counterparts. My gut tells me, however, that you believe that Republicans oppose global warming legislation out of a concern for the American people – not because they recieve money from corporate lobbies.

    Campaign finance is not the only point that demonstrates your hypocritical bias against the Democratic Party. You assert that Congressmen (presumably of the Democratic variety) raise taxes and increase spending primarily to increase their power. I suppose you assume that GOP congressmen wish to cut taxes and spending primarily as an act of good will towards the American public. These assumptions unfairly paint the Democratic party as being full of power hungry moguls who are not interested in good public policy while painting the Republican party as a group of saviors riding in on white horses.

    The simple fact of the matter is that both parties, while motivated in part by power, constituent concerns, and campaign finance, do indeed attempt to enact good public policy. Democrats believe that it government can intervene and make a positive difference in this world. The fact that your views do not align with this perspective does not warrant such a cynical mischaracterization of the Democratic party.

    Finally, the last sentence of your post invites the interpretation that Congress was involved somehow in smothering Carlin’s report. The link you provided shows no evidence to support such a claim. Indeed, the only evidence that points to the Obama administration’s involvement is Carlin’s word. Based on the evidence a stronger conclusion would be that EPA officials did not include portions of Carlin’s report because he is not a scientist (as Mr. Gore pointed out in a previous post) and was not on the panel commissioned to develop the report. I only hope that James Hansen was censored under the Bush administration for such sound reasons.


  4. Al Gore says:


  5. Nancy Pelosi says:

    Follow up:
    Hansen is a leading research scientist in the climate change field.;contentBody


  6. Sonia says:

    Ok, these posts are ridiculous – (except for you Al)

    First, James Hansen is a wackjob:

    Second, Nancy Pelosi is a wackjob:

    And here’s some unrelated proof of her incompetence (not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere on blog. If it has I appologize)

    object width=”425″ height=”344″>

  7. George says:

    I’m confused, why are we talking about james hansen? And why are we talking about Nancy Pelosi?

    Thanks for the help guys. I love the spirited comments.

    • Richard says:

      Hansen is a NASA scientist who accused the Bush administration of censoring his reports regarding global warming. This fact is mentioned in the link cowofdoom provided in the last sentence of his post (click on the word “this” in that sentence to follow the link). Hansen believes that global warming presents an imminent threat to the world’s wellbeing and that action must be taken now to prevent irreversible consequences. The reason Nancy mentioned him in her post is to show that the author of this post wasn’t giving both sides of the story.

      I don’t see any posts about Nancy Pelosi. I only see posts written under that pseudonym.

  8. Jerry says:

    Nancy, the Republican’s have God on their side! We are the moral and spiritual majority! God fights for America. The GOP fights for America. Therefore God fights for the GOP!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: