Essay:Why Global Warming?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Global Warming Movement was born out of the Free Trade Movement in an effort to level the playing field in international trade,[1] to transfer manufacturing from the industrialized world to the developing world, to raise incomes in the developing world so as they would be able to afford and purchase the manufactured and service exports that the developed world had to offer.[2][3]

Prior to the modern Free Trade Movement, Third World and developing countries had to take on an often unrepayable debt to purchase Western manufacturing technology, or even foodstuffs, which kept them in a static and subservient position, vulnerable to radical and anti-Western agitation.[4] Offering a hand up in free trade was seen as more beneficial than a sink-hole of charity, writing off bad debts, and foreign aid.[5][6] Enabling the Third World and "emerging markets" to purchase Western wares and services through trade needed to overcome the pay gap between workers globally.[7] For this purpose the Big Mac Index, based upon one of the few American exports affordable to workers outside America, was devised to measure the disparity in global wage rates.[8]

The Cold War and Reagan era

Throughout the Cold War (1945-1992) the developed world, and the Western world particularly, bounded ahead of the communist bloc of nations and what was known as the emerging nations by a magnitude of several degrees propelled by ideological competition between capitalism and what the communist bloc offered to the rest of the impoverished Third World. The legacy of this is seen in the US Defense budget. The US, which creates 25% of World GDP, nevertheless accounts for 37% of worldwide defense spending, down from previous highs. "U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world."[9] No one would suggest further reductions today in a leaderless and dangerous world. Spinoff and collateral technologies of US defense spending have given us the internet, satellite communications, and cell phone technology to name a few engines of the modern global economy.

The Reagan economic program bore with it an unresolved dichotomy: while it proposed to jumpstart a latent economic potential and an end to stagnation of the US and the global economy, its Free Trade aspects carried the seeds of the US's own manufacturing demise. At the time the US already had an economy dominated by the service sector. Housing construction (which is not an export commodity) replaced auto manufacturing as the No. 1 manufacturing employer a few years earlier. Auto manufacturing had been ceded to foreign competitors, with about $10,000 per unit (nearly $30,000 by today's measure) exported for each new car purchased. Money which could have remained home, used as wages for American workers, and circulated in communities. Free Trade helped level the playing field and break the overpriced labor of American unions.[10]

The Ross Perot voters of yesteryear have become the victors of 2016. Albeit, the United States has suffered the damage Perot sought to avoid after he made a decision that both major US political parties were bent on pursuing destruction of the US manufacturing sector.[11]

Does Global warming exist?

In short, yes. But that is not the purpose of this essay. The question is, Why does a cult-like mentality grip global warming advocates intent on indoctrinating elementary schoolchildren and demonizing sceptics? Anthropomorphic destruction of the environment is as old as the human species itself; human waste and excretion making its way into drinking water sources, for example, is far more lethal than carbon emissions, certainly has killed more people over countless millennia, and will remain a problem for as long as the species is alive. Deforestation for firewood, destruction of animal habitat to clear arable farmland, have all occurred for the economic wellbeing of our species. Why is what is purported to be science-based facts, argued with such emotional vigor? When will the final Apocalypse, preached with a religious ferverence by advocates, arrive?[12] When the Big Mac Index reaches parity? (currently at 36, between a range 11 and 78 for the richest and poorest countries).

Of coarse, no solution is ever perfect. The pendelum has now swung back. The "spread the wealth" mentality has impoverished America enough that a free people are now sick of it. Globalization, to use the globalists own terminology, has given way to the arch-foe of "nationalism". These are the arguments social justice warriors masquerading as natural scientists, and natural scientists masquerading as social justice warriors, use to label unemployed workers voting in their own economic interests as fascists.

Even President Obama, who came into office mocking George W. Bush's Christianity when pledging to "restore science to its rightful place,"[13] before leaving office showed he too had been converted to the idea of American exceptionalism:

if we're not on the side of what’s right, if we're not making the argument and fighting for it, even if sometimes we're not able to deliver at 100 percent everywhere -- then it collapses. And there’s nobody to fill the void. There really isn't.... That's a burden that we should carry proudly.[14]

Science becomes a political player

Selling the notion of job destruction, of course, was frought with problems. "Improved living standards" was the first track. Cheaper foreign made goods would stretch the dollar, raise our standards of living, and make us all richer. But labor unions, represented by such politicians as Richard Gephardt who was Democratic Majority Leader in the House when President Bill Clinton pressed his NAFTA treaty through the Senate, railed against it.[15] Turning Third Worlders into producers, traders, and consumers of American exports was a far fetched dream, claimed the anti-NAFTA protectionists and racists.[16] A starving world that lives on $2 a day, they argued, was better off with nothing rather than to pay them $2 an hour. It was better to live with greedy, overpaid American workers than pacify the developing world with jobs and dignity.

The collective appeal to world peace was never really articulated as the driving momentum. The idea that the developing and Third World could be mollified with direct investment and resist the exports of the Soviet Union - AK-47s, communist agitprop, and resentment - would help stop the US from having to play the world's policeman. In the mid 1990s when Congress finally acted upon several far reaching trade agreements, the "putting out fires" argument grew into a "promote democracy" mantra.

But by the 1980s science had already been called upon to help make the transition of heavily regulated manufacturing in the United States and the Western world to the less regulated, less environmentally friendly, developing and Third World. Their less regulated state, after all, was why they were called the developing and Third World. Science made the appeal to the more educated Western workers on environmental grounds (backed up by the strong arm of government and law), and left the inexperienced, uneducated Third Worlders to fend for themselves, now at the mercy of their new, greedy, capitalist employers and investors. And what did the Third World have to complain about? They were making $2 a day now. Here science became less scientific, and more like a political movement.

The roots of this cult-like mentality among "science advocates" have nothing to do with global warming and more to do with socio-political debates about the meaning of the word liberty, and past debates on the separation of church and state, the anti-God movement, the Scopes Monkey Trial, and prayer in American schools. An intellectualism was developed to spam the discussion with technical language and use ad hominens to attack deniers of facts that keep changing, facts such as estimates of ocean temperatures[17] (an estimate incidentally is not a fact, it is only an estimate. But this perversion of the language of science into a rhetorical art is necessary to transform science into a competitive ideology).

If global warming were such a threat - a greater threat to survival of the human species than Apartheid South Africa - the scientific community certainly was in a position to urge boycotts on US manufacturers, or any manufacturer, who moved elsewhere to continue destroying the planet while reimporting the same manufactured goods. This they never did nor even discussed. Rather, they showed themselves shills of greedy globalists who wanted to level the playing field in international wage disparities and had no conscience for the lives and communities they helped facilitate being destroyed.

What was needed to fill the agenda was time for the Third World to catch up.[18] To level the playing field and create opportunities for a once destitute and indigent Third World to compete and trade, a breathing space, or respite from income growth in the advanced nations needed to occur. Science provided not only the strong arm justifications to shut down US manufacturing, but the ideological underpinings for a generation of schoolchildren weaned off the superstitious beliefs of their forebearers. This transformed science from an independent, unbiased field to an active participant with its own interests and agenda. Empowered to be the sole arbiters of fact and truth, science advocates went on a crusade to consolidate and hold their newly found political power. And some had old scores to settle with their imagined ideological competetitors.

Global warming became the cause to fulfiil an affirmative action program for emerging markets and the Third World.

Social Costs of Green House Gases

An Executive Order in 1993 required federal agencies to monetize the value of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions for cost/benefit analysis. A court order in 2008 required federal agenicies (basically the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency) to standardize their methodologies. The Social Costs of Green House Gases (SC-GHG) formula is expressed as U.S. dollars per metric ton of emissions in a given year (for example, $/t CO2 for carbon dioxide).

A few cases in point

Lets examine the per capita income of three countries which have remained relatively consistent to each other over the past 35 years despite tremendous global economic changes, Russia, Mexico, and Iran. All three countries are major crude oil exporters. Measured in today's dollars, Russia and Mexico have about $6000 per capita income, or about $100 a week. This parity has been fairly constant now, even after Mexico gained jobs as a result of NAFTA later lost to Chinese competitors, and Russia experienced post-communist boom and bust cycles. Iran has about $7500 per capita income, or nearly 25% higher, even while contending with economic sanctions hanging over it for much of the time. $125 a week may not seem like much to an American worker, but a 25% disparity between Mexican, Russian, and their Iranian counterparts is a huge difference. With sanctions lifted and trade restored, the historical disparity will grow, Iranian incomes will rise approaching First World status, Iran will see itself more as an equal among superpowers, and the growth of carbon emissions makes it all possible. Don't fool yourself, Obama has already sold the global warming cultists down the river in the hopes of peace and international trade.

President Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth that global warming was the biggest threat facing the planet, yet the Iranian sanctions, which retarded Iranian contributions to global warming, were quickly discarded when Boeing and other large corporate taxpaying contributors to the US Treasury were losing trade contracts to First World (German, French and Russian) competitors. Then suddenly global warming, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics, and the use of trade to promote democracy were unceremoniously flushed down the toilet.

Science today

The term "science" today no longer refers to a field of knowledge. It refers to a collective body of people with ideological and political interests.[19] Much the same way the term "Education" refers to teacher's unions, or "Army" refers to soldiers. "Money for education", for example, has nothing to do with children or the quality of their education and exclusively refers to teacher pay raises. To advocate merit pay or oppose unreasonable union demands is to oppose education. "Money for science" has nothing to do with funding research knowledge and solely refers to grants for a political interest group.

The current strategy is to merge the Climate Change (CC) social justice movement with the HIV prevention and education and AIDS Drugs For All movements,[20] into what the United Nations calls the HIV and Climate Change Complex (HACC), "the most contentious and difficult to demonstrate. This concerns the complex multidirectional inter-relationships between CC, poverty, inequality, governance, migration, conflict and other social phenomena." Redefining human rights has become necessary in the struggle to sell the planet on the concept of global warming.[21] Clearly, we have escaped the bonds of natural sciences' traditional role of being educational and informative, into dictating the focus of social sciences, marketing, and public opinion polling. Yet simple economic realities and international relations (two areas of social science) have repeatedly trumped the role where natural scientists feel they should reign supreme having dethroned God by mere logic. And the courts and parliaments have backed them up.

Science has become the Vishvarupa, the One without a Second, Master-Lord of the Universe. A creature of many faces who speaks with authority, moreso than advice columnists of a generation ago such as Ann Landers on subjects such as spanking children.[22]


  12. or, as the poet says,
    Wann dröhnt er, der Vernichtungsschlag,
    mit dem die Welt zusammenkracht?
  15. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served 38 years in Washington DC and 24 of them in the US Senate, sheparded the bill through Congress. Moynihan, who had great respect for the institutional memory of the Senate said on the floor, "we are about to cast a vote of monumental importance--on a par with the historic and defining votes on the League of Nations and the Marshall Plan. The legislation that we take up this morning will approve and implement the largest, most comprehensive trade agreement the international community has yet witnessed. If this Senate approves the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, as I fully expect it shall, that action will represent nothing less than the culmination of 60 years of American trade policymaking--policymaking that began with Cordell Hull's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program in 1934 and that has, ever since, been carried out in the best bipartisan traditions of this body." Democratic Sen. Howell Heflin who opposed the bill observed, "pressure will be great to scale back our laws so that they are in harmony with weaker international standards, thereby creating a lowest common denominator approach to trade legislation and a significant relaxation of important social safeguards."