Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax

Read this Preface and Introduction to Larry Bell’s new book and if you like it, buy it. – Ed Berry

Dedicated to Al Gore, whose invention of the Internet made this book possible, and whose invention of facts made it necessary


Regarding climate science there is at least one certainty: There is absolutely no reason to believe that Earth is any warmer now than it was during past periods when life flourished—times when agriculture was abundant, pyramids and cities were built, and world citizens became connected in trade and culture.

The March 2006 Time magazine cover story “Global Warming: Be Worried, Be Very Worried” warned of impending climate doom that would result in melting polar caps, rising oceans, and other catastrophes. If any worry is warranted, think about the next overdue Ice Age that scientific “experts” predicted only a few decades earlier. Then hope that the cooling period we are currently experiencing will only be brief. Understand that the real impetus behind the cooked numbers and doomspeak of the global warmers has little to do with the state of the environment and much to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of life in the inter­ests of global wealth redistribution (“social justice”).

Is this all a conspiracy? It really isn’t in the conventional sense, where a dia­bolical network of people and organizations unite to hatch intentionally malevolent plans. Let’s assume that most of the entities and individuals discussed in this book truly believe they are pursuing righteous causes, even when we happen to strongly disagree with their viewpoints and priorities. Maybe we can hope that some of them will cut us the same slack.

But then, what about when those people and institutions we rely upon for important public information knowingly violate our trust? For example, by per­petrating unwarranted fear campaigns and by politically attacking and marginal­izing those who challenge and expose factual errors, omissions, and uncertainties we need to know about. Should we excuse them even when they believe such actions are guided by superior moral authority? Absolutely not! These are clear acts of deception and corruption.

Obviously, this book addresses controversial topics, and readers have a right to know something about the person who wrote it. First, I am not a climate scientist and have never even played one in the movies. And although Houston is my chosen home, I have never been associated with “Big Oil”—or “little oil” either, for that matter. Nor am I connected with scientific funding, business organizations, or lob­bies on either side of the issues. Few people within any such camps will know who I am, nor do they have any real reason to.

I have written some articles about climate, energy, and technology that were published in the Energy Tribune, an international magazine. This was done by invi­tation, and for small stipends, yet never was I influenced in any way regarding what I would write about or say. I would have cheerfully written them free of charge, but please don’t tell the magazine.

In short, I am a space guy. My field is space architecture, which deals with planning and designing space stations and habitats for future lunar and Mars missions. I also undertake research and planning for extreme environments on Earth, such as polar, desert, underwater, and disaster facilities. This interest extends to working to prevent our entire planet from becoming an extreme environment.

My background and interests emphasize a holistic perspective regarding basic principles that govern how natural and technical systems work, how they are con­nected, and how they can be managed to support the most complex systems of all—us humans. This, in fact, is how this project really got started. I was innocently exploring some research and notions about “Spaceship Earth”—considering what we might possibly learn from nature about how to design artificial, closed climate and energy systems operating beyond our planet. Some space guys think about those kinds of things. In any case, that inquiry revealed much more than I bargained for.

Quite early in my investigation, I recalled a comment offered by S. Fred Singer when he visited my office several years ago to exchange ideas on a totally different space-related matter. During our meeting, he observed that satellite temperature recordings of the Earth’s lower atmosphere were cooling more rapidly, relative to the surface, than greenhouse theory predicts. It would be expected that carbon dioxide (CO2) would warm the lower atmosphere first, which would then radiate heat back to the surface, the reverse of what was being observed. I certainly had no reason to doubt him. Fred is an internationally recognized climate physicist and former Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University. He served as the first director of the US National Weather Satellite Service and also as vice chairman of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. In addition, he has written numerous publications about climate, energy, and environmental issues, including a recent New York Times best seller, Unstoppable Global Warming, coauthored with Dennis T. Avery.

Although I didn’t think all that much about Fred’s casual observation at the time, it piqued a mild interest, and my later investigations have amplified ques­tions regarding numerous climate change hypotheses, most particularly in regard to alarmist assertions, which have no real basis in science. My subsequent conclu­sions will now qualify me as a global warming skeptic and doomsday denier. This is not intended to suggest that I don’t believe that climate change occurs or that it isn’t abnormally warm right now. Compared with Ice Ages that have historically dominated Earth’s climate about 90 percent of the time, we can be very grateful we are blessed with conditions more favorable for the lives we enjoy.

Yes, climate change is real, occurring with regular and irregular cycles and for lots of reasons. Scientists know about many of them, but much less about how these dynamic causes and effects interact or what combined results will occur at any given time. No one, not anyone, can even begin to reliably predict what Earth’s global climate will be a decade or multiple decades hence, much less whether the impacts will be positive or negative with regard to all God’s creatures—us included. Nor has anyone or any science conclusively demonstrated that human activities have caused or are causing climate change for better or worse, or if so, which activities, and with how much influence. Any claims of certainty to the contrary are bogus. Accordingly, and specifically, assertions that human CO2 emissions are the root of climate crisis, or that such a threat exists, are challenged as factually unsupportable alarmism.

One unfortunate fact we can count on is that we are facing a global energy supply dilemma that has no simple solution. Answers do not lie with much-touted “renewable” energy sources, because they all lack sufficient potential capacities to make much overall difference. And for all their advertised “greenness,” absolutely no options are immune from environmental activist opposition. Yet fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas—particularly coal) are regarded as real villains, and a predicted global warming apocalypse will be their curse. (The term “fossil fuels” often will be referred to hereafter simply as “fossils.”) Even resistance to the scourge of disaster risks previously associated with nuclear power now pales in comparison.

Global warming hysteria centered upon fossil-fuel CO2 emissions is being advanced and exploited by powerful alternative energy marketers and carbon-trading interests. Aided and abetted by climate science hijackers, their aggres­sive lobbying campaigns have been extremely consequential. CO2, which sustains plants that nourish us with oxygen and food, has come to be popularly character­ized as a polluting menace. Initiatives to develop vital oil and natural gas reserves are being delayed, while options with scant potential dominate public media and legislative attention.

Inescapable evidence shows that human activities are impacting Earth’s envi­ronment, typically not for the better. Air, water, and land pollution are an expand­ing global reality. Environmental scientists who study such matters play important roles in pointing such things out and helping us to do better. That purpose is not well served, however, by exaggerated statements calibrated to get maximum atten­tion. Alarmism is not conducive to sound judgment or worthy of public respect, whatever the motives.

There can also be no doubt that fossil fuel depletion is a very real and serious problem, and while nuclear development is essential, it is most unfortunate that there are presently no complete or perfect remedies. Yet, given our proven history of human innovation, progress, and resilience, we have every reason to believe that solutions will ultimately be realized.

I had never planned to write this book—or any book. First, after family and friends witnessed the amount of research I had compiled—and were relentlessly exposed to my ever-deepening passion about the topics—they insisted that I do so. Eventually, I realized that I had to, like it or not. This decision was motivated by the fact that, like many of you, I am a parent who cares about the future of my children and the generations who will follow. I want them to inherit a clean, healthy planet, along with means to obtain energy sufficiency essential for comfortable lifestyles and economic opportunities. Conservation must be a big part of all solutions.

We clearly need to develop better alternatives, and to begin doing so now. In the meantime, we must also develop and expand access to resources that will enable those transitions; we must not be misled by hyperbole regarding sustainable replacement options that can only serve as supplements at best. Misguided, climate  hysteria–induced knee-jerk energy policies won’t help get us where we need to go.

Each of us must determine whether or not we regard ourselves to be true envi­ronmentalists. I believe that environmentalism is not so much defined by what we are against as by what we are for, and neither fear nor guilt are prerequisites. Envi­ronmentalism need not be strident or perpetually confrontational. An environmen­talist identity cannot really be owned, only practiced.



Conscientious environmentalism does not require or benefit from subscription to hysterical guilt over man-made climate crisis claims. Per­haps some may argue that unfounded alarmism is justifiable, even neces­sary, to get our attention to do what we should be doing anyway: for example, conserve energy and not pollute the planet. Hey, who wants to challenge those important purposes?

But what about examining motives? For example, when those who are twanging our guilt strings falsely portray polar bears as endangered climate victims to block drilling in Alaska’s Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), and when alarmists classify CO2 as an endangering pollutant to promote lucrative cap-and-trade legisla­tion and otherwise unwarranted alternative energy subsidies. What if these repre­sentations lack any sound scientific basis? Is that okay?

The Hot Spin Cycle

Cyclical, abrupt, and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years, long before humans invented agriculture, indus­tries, automobiles, and carbon-trading schemes. Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even our most sophisticated climate mod­els have failed to predict the timing, scale (either up or down), impacts, or human influences. While theories abound, there is no consensus, as claimed, that “science is settled” on any of those theories—much less is there consensus about the human influences upon or threat implications of climate change.

Among these hypotheses, man-made global warming caused by burning fos­sils has been trumpeted as an epic crisis. CO2, a “greenhouse gas,” has been identi­fied as a primary culprit and branded as an endangering “pollutant.” This, despite the fact that throughout Earth’s history the increases in the atmospheric CO2 level have tended to follow, not lead, rising temperatures. It should also be understood that CO2 accounts for only 0.04 of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and about 97 per­cent of that tiny trace amount comes from naturally occurring sources that humans haven’t influenced.

The big lie is that we are living in a known climate change crisis. Climate warm­ing and cooling have occurred throughout the ages. Is the Earth warming right now? Probably not, but what if it is? It might be cooling next year. The models that predict a crisis are speculative at best, and two recent events have cast even more doubt on their accuracy. One relates to undisputable evidence that influential members of the climate science community have cooked the books to advance their theories and marginalize contrary findings. The other problem is evidence provided directly by Mother Nature herself that the global climate appears to have entered a new cooling cycle.

Public exposure of hacked e-mail files retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia revealed scandalous communications among researchers who have fomented global warming hysteria. Their exchanges confirm long-standing and broadly suspected manipulations of climate data. Included are conspiracies to falsify and withhold information, to suppress contrary findings in scholarly publications, and to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made global warming. Many of these individuals have had major influence over summary report findings issued by the United Nations’ IPCC. This organization has been recog­nized as the world authority on such matters, and it shares a Nobel Prize with Al Gore for advancing climate change awareness.

Among the more than three thousand purloined CRU documents is an e-mail from its director, Philip Jones, regarding a way to fudge the data to hide evidence of temperature declines:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [journal] trick of adding the real temperatures to each series for the past 20 years [i.e., from 1981 onward] and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline [emphasis mine].”

“Mike,” in this instance, refers to climatologist Michael Mann, who created the now infamous “hockey stick” chart that has repeatedly appeared in IPCC reports, as well as in Al Gore promo­tions, to portray accelerated global warming beginning with the Industrial Revolu­tion—hence, caused by humans. The chart has been thoroughly debunked thanks to careful analyses by two Canadian researchers who uncovered a variety of serious problems. Included are calculation errors, data used twice, and a computer program that produced a hockey stick out of whatever data was fed into it.1

Some of the e-mails reveal less than full public candor about what scientists don’t know about past temperatures. For example, one from Edward Cook, direc­tor of tree ring research at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Laboratory, to CRU’s deputy director Keith Briffa on September 3, 2003, admitted that little could be deduced regarding past Northern Hemisphere temperatures from the tree ring proxy data Mann used:

“We can probably say a fair bit about [less than] 100-year extra-tropical NH temperature variability . . . but honestly know f**k-all [expletive deleted] about what the [more than] 100-year variability was like with any certainty.”

Correspondence leaves no doubt that the members of the network were con­cerned the cooling since 1998 they had observed would be publicly exposed. In an October 26, 2008, note from CRU’s Mick Kelly to Jones, he comments,

“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer 10-year period of relatively stable temperatures . . .”

He added,

“Speculation but if I see this possibil­ity, then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Another e-mail to Michael Mann (which James Hansen at NASA was copied on), sent by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, reflected exasperation concerning a lack of global warming evidence:

“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming. We are asking here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had four inches of snow.”

He continued,

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t . . . the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”2

Trenberth, an advisory IPCC high priest and man-made global warming spokesperson, didn’t waste a publicity opportunity to link a devastating 2005 US hurricane season to this cause. After ignoring admonitions from top expert Christo­pher Landsea that this assumption was not supported by known research, Trenberth proceeded with the unfounded claim that dominated world headlines.

Clearly, members of the CRU e-mail network used their considerable influ­ence to block the publication of research by climate crisis skeptics, thus preventing inclusion of contrary findings in IPCC reports. In one e-mail, Tom Wigley, a senior scientist and Trenberth associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, shared his disdain for global warming challengers, common among global warming proponents:

“If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted.”3

Possibly one of the most serious and legally hazardous breaches of professional accountability is seen in an e-mail from Jones to Mann concerning withholding of taxpayer-supported scientific data:

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Informa­tion Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”

He then asks Mann to join him in deleting official IPCC-related files:

Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: AR4 [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?”

A different e-mail from Jones assures Mann of the way some troublesome contrarian research will be handled:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to rede­fine what the peer-reviewed process is!”

A Jones letter to his colleagues instructed them,

“Don’t any of you three tell anyone that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act.”

Still another stated,

“We also have a data platform act, which I will hide behind.”

The CRU fallout is spreading: It now includes broader allegations by a Rus­sian scientific group that climate-change data obtained from that country has been cherry-picked to overstate a rise in temperatures. Russia accounts for a large por­tion of the world’s landmass, and incorrect data there would affect overall global temperature analyses.

Two things are clear from the CRU emails:

(1) Perpetrators of climate science fraud have routinely conspired to exaggerate temperature increases since the Indus­trial Revolution, and

(2) these same perpetrators virtually ignored comparable and even warmer times that preceded this period, as well as prolonged temperature declines since this period, that contradict greenhouse theory and model predic­tions.

Other explanations that conform much more closely to observed fluctuations have been dismissed or aggressively attacked. These practices have produced unsup­portable alarmist statements trumpeted in the world press that continue to influ­ence multitrillion-dollar US and international policy decisions—decisions based upon a contrived crisis of hysteria . . . a climate of corruption.

Chilling News for “Warm-Mongers”

The climate is always changing, in long and short cycles, and mankind has survived and thrived in conditions that have varied greatly from what they are right now.

It is apparent that our planet is once again experiencing a global cooling trend, just as it did quite recently between 1940 and 1975, when warnings of a coming new ice age received front-page coverage in the New York Times and other major pub­lications. NASA satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, where warming greenhouse models predicted effects would be greatest, stopped rising as a decadal trend after 1998 despite increased levels of CO2 . Measurements recorded by four major temperature-tracking outlets showed that world temperatures plummeted by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (1ºF) during 2007. This cooling approached the total of all the warming that had occurred over that past 100 years. In other words, temperatures worldwide and collectively never rose more than 1ºF in a century. 2008 was significantly colder than 2007 had been. Although models predicted that the year 2008 would be one of the warmest on record, it actually ranked fourteenth coldest since satellite records commenced in 1979, and the coldest since 2000.4

If ordinary citizens don’t receive or heed scientific reports, many may legiti­mately question global warming assertions from direct experience. Take the year 2007, for example. North America had the most snow it’s recorded in the past 50 years. A Boston storm in December dumped 10 inches of snow, more than the city typically receives in that entire month, and Madison, Wisconsin, had the highest seasonal snowfall since record keeping began.5 Record cold temperatures were recorded in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, and Mexico.

Those trends continued into the following 2 years. During October 2008, Ore­gon temperatures mid-month dipped to record lows, and Boise, Idaho, received its earliest-ever recorded snowfall. December 2008 witnessed 3.6 inches of snow in the Las Vegas Valley, the most to have fallen at that time of year since 1938, when record keeping began. Houston witnessed its earliest-ever recorded snowfall on December 4, 2009.6

A blizzard on February 20, 2010, broke a Washington, DC, 110-year-old annual snowfall record of 55 inches as well as seasonal records in Baltimore and Philadel­phia.7 Then, on February 26 and 27, another storm that pummeled New York City for 2 days broke a monthly snowfall record (37 inches) in Central Park that had stood for 114 years; the previous record for February was 28 inches in 1934, and the largest for any month was 30.5 inches in March 1896.8

Most people’s perceptions about warming and cooling trends depend on where they happen to reside and the time range they have experienced for reference. Dur­ing July 2010, those throughout New England witnessed temperatures among the ten warmest recorded during that month in about a century, while temperatures in southeastern US states registered below normal. Simultaneously, Los Angeles broke a coldest July day record set in 1926, Australia since 1966, and the southern cone of South America saw the coldest July in half a century.9 Freezing temperatures in eastern Bolivia (normally above 68ºF) killed millions of fish in three major rivers, characterized there as an environmental catastrophe.10

Going back to 2007, Baghdad saw its first snowfall ever recorded, and China experienced its coldest winter in 100 years. Record cold temperatures were also recorded in Argentina, Chile, and yes, even Greenland. The end of 2007 set a record for the largest Southern Hemisphere sea ice expanse since satellite altimeter moni­toring began in 1979, it was about 1 million square kilometers more than the previ­ous 28-year average. In 2008, Durban, South Africa, had its coldest September night in history, and parts of that country experienced an unusual late-winter snow. A month earlier, New Zealand officials at Mount Ruapehu reported the largest snow accumulation ever.11

According to records collected by NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, 2008 was cooler than 2007, making it the coldest year thus far of the 21st century. And this has occurred while atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to rise.12

This picture is far different from much of the information presented in the media. As a case in point, a 2008 Associated Press report claimed that the 10 warm­est days recorded have occurred since the time of President Bill Clinton’s second inaugural in January 1997. The report quoted James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Godard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); Hansen is a principal adviser to Al Gore and has been a primary source of much global warming alarmism. NASA later issued corrections. In reality, the warmest recorded days—in descending order—occurred in 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1934, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939. As Jay Lehr, a senior fellow and science director at the Heartland Institute, stated on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight program in December 2008,

“If we go back in really recorded human history, in the 13th century we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now.”13

Bear in mind that monthly, annual, decadal and much longer temperature fluc­tuations are fundamental aspects of Earth’s dynamic climate history.  Also remem­ber that incredibly complex and interactive mechanisms and effects of those changes are geographically distributed in ways that confound global generalization.  Most recently, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center reported that March, April, May and June of 2010 set records for the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880.  However June was actually cooler than average across Scandinavia, southeastern China and the northwestern US according to the same report.14

NOAA ground stations reported the June average to be 1.22oF higher than normal, while NASA satellite data showed only 0.79oF above a 20-year average.  This made June 2010 the second warmest in the short 32-year satellite temperature record, and the first six months of 2010 were second warmest also.  So what can we really deduce from all of this to predict a trend?  Not much of anything, and cer­tainly nothing to be alarmed about.

Climate, Carbon, and Conspirators

So, who stands to gain from climate science corruption? There are many culprits, and they are becoming ever more powerful. Principal among these are certain agenda-driven federal government regulatory agencies, alternative energy and environmental lobbies, and yes, the UN and other organizations that seek global resource and wealth redistribution. Many of these organs of misinformation are joined at a common colon.

The IPCC has long served as the authoritative source of alarmist climate change predictions cited in media and activist warm-mongering campaigns. A richly funded example is Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP), which has routinely enlisted celebrities in advertising for united action against a “climate crisis.” In reality, the IPCC only conducts literature reviews, although many of the publications it selectively cites are produced by the same influential people that author its reports. Moreover, illuminating CRU e-mails revealed that a small group within that orga­nization actively worked to prevent research findings that contradicted their biases from being published in leading journals, hence blocking dissenting views from being reviewed and cited in IPCC reports.

Global warming doom-speakers and promoters of fossil energy alternatives are united behind carbon-capping politics. Climate change alarm drives the devel­opment and marketing of technologies that are otherwise uncompetitive without major government support. Unwarranted climate fear, combined with legitimate public concern about fossil-fuel depletion and dependence upon foreign oil, is pro­moted to justify to taxpayers and consumers the use of more costly energy options. Media campaigns portray images of dying polar bears as fossil fuel—generated car­bon casualties to support arguments against drilling in ANWR and, by association, other national oil and natural gas reserves. Fossil-fuel prices rise higher, assisted by massive CO2 sequestration costs and de facto cap-and-trade taxes, so consumers pay more, making alternatives seem all the more attractive.

Does it seem remarkable that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applied a global warming argument to declare that CO2, the natural molecule essen­tial for all plant life, is a “pollutant”? Might that possibly have to do with a larger agenda supported by the EPA and other organizations, such as wind and solar power lobbies and prospective carbon brokers, to limit fossil fuel use by requiring costly carbon sequestration, in turn making alternatives more price competitive, justifying subsidies, and supporting cap-and-trade schemes? But of course, those purposes wouldn’t fall within EPA responsibilities, would they? And they wouldn’t make any sense at all if man-made carbon emissions didn’t pose a dire climate threat.

Yet consider the implications of the suppressed EPA “Internal Study on Cli­mate” report that was kept under wraps, its author silenced, due to pressure to sup­port the agency’s agenda to regulate CO2. Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), had stated in that report that after examining numerous global warming studies, his research showed the available observable data to invalidate the hypothesis that humans cause dan­gerous global warming. He concluded, “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particu­lar reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”15

 After serving with the EPA for 38 years, Alan Carlin was taken off climate-related work and was forbidden from speaking to anyone outside the organization on endangerment issues such as those in his then-suppressed report. A then-pro­posed “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act would enable the EPA to establish limits on CO2 and other GHG concentrations as threats to public health, directly supporting cap-and-trade carbon regulations. That finding is now in force.

Bowing to pressure from global warming alarmists, the US Department of the Interior placed polar bears on its Endangered Species Act list in 2008. Reported threats of massive melting in their habitats prompted this action. While the act’s purview doesn’t extend to actually regulating GHGs, there is little doubt that the classification establishes the species as poster cubs for the man-made global warm­ing movement. It also supports environmentalist opposition to oil and gas drilling in ANWR.

But are polar bear populations really declining, as tragically depicted in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth? Apparently not, according to Mitchell Taylor, manager of Wildlife Research for the Government of the Canadian Territory of Nunavut, which monitors these conditions: “Of the thirteen populations of polar bears in Canada, eleven are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct [nor do they] even appear to be affected at present . . . [It is] silly to present the demise of polar bears based on media-assisted hysteria.”16

Cap-and-trade legislation, a major priority of President Barack Obama’s admin­istration, has no defensible purpose without a supporting global warming rationale. It also makes no sense from an economic standpoint. It will place onerous cost bur­dens upon energy consumers, continue to drive businesses overseas, and offer no real climate or environmental benefits whatsoever. Such legislation will multiply the price of electricity by dramatically increasing coal plant construction and operating costs for CO2 sequestration. While intended to make such “renewables” as wind and solar more attractive, even this legislation won’t make them competitive without large tax-supported subsidies. A new stock exchange would then be created that treats (“bad”) carbon as a valuable (“good”) commodity, providing billions of profits for operators.

Al Gore, now a very wealthy “green energy” proponent, strongly lobbies for carbon-emission trading through a London-based hedge fund called Genera­tion Investment. He cofounded the company with David Blood, former head of investment management at Goldman Sachs, which in turn is a large shareholder in the Chicago Climate Exchange, a “voluntary pilot agency” established in 2003 to advance trading in US carbon emissions. Both organizations are working hard to persuade governments to block new power plants that use fossils. Gore exuber­antly told members at a March 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy and Science Committee:

“As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of invest­ment] in it . . . There will be unchained investment.”17

Perhaps the most serious public deception perpetrated by this “war against cli­mate change” (e.g., the carbon enemy) is the notion that cleaner, sustainable options are available in sufficient abundance to replace dependence upon fossil resources that currently provide about 85 percent of all US energy. Regrettably, this is broadly recognized not to be the case at all. Ironically, many of the same groups that cham­pion environmental and human causes are inhibiting progress toward vital solutions.

Extravagantly funded media campaigns continue to advertise a “climate change crisis,” despite obvious evidence that the Earth began cooling once more at least a decade ago. Meanwhile, America’s energy and industrial progress is being held hostage by political and legal pressures applied by groups that no one elected to represent us, and industries and other businesses that provide jobs and revenues are being driven overseas. And, as artificially manipulated energy costs continue to add unsustainable burdens to already out-of-control government borrowing and spend­ing deficits, those impacts will fall hardest upon people who can least afford them.

Spaceship Earth reporting . . . all systems functioning . . . thermal controls optimum. Thank you, God.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.