Topic: Whats more important than wheeling... ***URGENT***

[46&2]

My head is spinning trying to absorb everything that has been happening in politics lately. Ever since the idea of Carbon Credits started moving towards something that could actually happen, I have been trying to tell people it is NO GOOD. Everything about it is bad. I did a report for a Biology class (taught by a GW, Al Gore worshipping ass) on Carbon Credits and I did a lot of research on it and it is all bad. Honestly, if anyone arguing for carbon credits took the time to research, I think they would find it has CONTROL and TAX written all over it. I knew it was going to turn into something like this.

I am reading the Copenhagen treaty right now and I am not pleased with what I am reading, at all. 

[germ]

As promised, here is the letter that I will be sending to my congressman. You are welcome to copy and paste it, and send it to your representative as well. I'd suggest making a few changes to the body, so that it doesn't appear to be flagrant plagarism, but who knows if they will even talk to each other. I'll post the global waming thing I referred to next, so if you agree with it, you can include it also.

Dear Congressman Randanovich

I have been researching the Copenhagen Treaty, which is set to be signed by President Obama in December of this year. This is a document with many similarities to the Kyoto treaty, which was not ratified by the congress. I urge you to collaborate with your colleagues, and not ratify this treaty either.

This treaty proposes that by diverting large amounts of money from the wealthy western nations, to the poorer nations, we can bring about changes that will prevent “Global Warming”. It also sets in place mandates that are aimed at decreasing and ultimately eliminating “green house gasses”, which have been associated with “Global Warming”. The problem is that “Global Warming”, is a fallacy, which was based on faulty computer models and unsubstantiated assumptions. I have read a significant amount of this treaty, and it sets in motion several mechanisms that aim to control many of the world governments, distribute money and resources according to their agenda, and create impossible regulations, which will bring our economy to its knees.

The following are some examples quoted directly from the treaty document (underlining is my emphasis, and my comments follow). The proposed treaty is 187 pages, and I wouldn’t expect you to read my letter if I quoted the entire thing, so here are a few select sections from the beginning of the treaty that make the agenda fairly clear. I would urge you to read the document for yourself, as it is rather enlightening what others have in store for our nation. It can be found at

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/documents/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
Or
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Page 6,
PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global
investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities.
{COMMENT: They are planning for this treaty to influence global monetary flow based on POTENTIAL impacts. This again is based on erroneous computer models that were built on unsubstantiated assumptions. }

PP.14 Acknowledging that current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of
historical emissions of greenhouse gases, the most significant share of which has originated in developed countries.
{COMMENT: Placing the blame on the wealthy nations}

PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their
disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their
disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.
{COMMENT: One volcanic eruption emits more “greenhouse” gasses than we could have done in 160 years. This doesn’t even make sense. I have included an attachment, which are my calculations to determine if man made global warming even makes sense. It doesn’t.}

1. [[[As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report] Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]
{COMMENT: Here again, this is an assumption, which is being touted as fact, and is erroneous. Solar flares and ocean currents affect global temperatures much more than CO2}
2. Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries[Parties].
{COMMENT: This is an example of “if you say it enough times, it becomes true”. This is totally false.}

Pg. 8 Paragraph 8
…Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts…
{COMMENT: According to this, we’re already in debt for being successful, and therefore we will pay to our less fortunate neighbors until they are equal to us, all in the name of climate change}

…Those developing countries that were and are low carbon economies need sufficient financial incentives and appropriate technology transfer to keep avoiding GHG emissions in their path to sustainable development and to prevent adopting the high GHG emission trajectories of developed countries.
{Comment: They will also incentivise these nations to do what the convention wants. Who will decide what these incentives are, and how long they will last.}

Pg 10
20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and
integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective.
{COMMENT: Does this sound like a new independent government without national borders or oversight? It certainly sounds like it could be.}

Pg 26, paragraph 12, Section C
[[Provide a comprehensive and structured approach to] Enable, support, facilitate and implement [urgent and immediate, medium- and long-term] adaptation actions, [by ensuring] [including through the provision of] the predictable, [stable,] adequate and timely flow of new and additional financial resources and the [development, deployment,diffusion, and] transfer of technology to [support] [enable urgent and immediate]national, [subnational,] regional, and subregional adaptation projects and programmes [to address the adverse effects of climate change] in all developing countries,[particularly LDCs and SIDS] [in accordance with the preamble of the Convention (preambular paragraphs 19 and 20) and its Article 4.4, 4.8 and 4.9];]

It appears that this treaty would cede control of our nation, its resources and finances to a “convention”, which is not beholden to anyone but itself. It appears that any new legislation would have to fit within the confines of the Conventions framework. Many of the statements found in the treaty have the distinct sound of socialism/communism. The redistribution of wealth and resources from the nations that have it to the nations that don’t.

Again, I would ask you to collaborate with your colleagues, and ensure that this treaty not be ratified. It undermines our national sovereignty, and will bankrupt our nation. It does this based on fear of something that is being proven to be false, namely Global Warming.  While I would agree that we have polluted this planet horribly, we have not caused Global Warming. Actual data shows that the earth is currently cooling, rather than warming. Computer models show differently of course. Which do we believe? Real, measurable, verifiable data, or a computer model, which is based on assumptions. Remember, a computer can make as many mistakes in 10 seconds as 10 men working 10 years.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[germ]

I am including this, not to start another debate on man made global warming, but so that you can include it in your letter to your representative, if you choose to. It is written in terms that even a congress[wo]man can understand. You can also use it to irritate your favorite global warming activist. Hope this helps.

The theory of “man made global warming” has some serious flaws. It is based on dubious data, assumptions, models and projections that vary widely among scientists. It cannot be proven. A simplistic example of a proven theory would be gravity. If you drop something while standing on the planet earth, it will fall to the earth. It happens every time it is tested, without fail. Therefore, it is proven. Many theories in science have been proven, (osmosis, nuclear fission, etc) but there are just as many scientific “proofs” that have completely fallen apart once new data is gathered. All theories need to be examined under the simple lens of: Does it even make sense?

Global warming is the latest in a series of “disasters” that will befall us if we do not drastically change our ways. Science is being used to try and legitimize the argument. One only needs to look back a few years and remember the world famine, the rise of SARS, and the bird flu, which were poised to destroy humanity. One does not have to look far to see the next big disasters on the horizon. Solar storms, shifting of the magnetic poles, ebola, and others are just waiting for their chance to destroy us as well. They are not as popular because nobody has figured out how to capitalize on them yet, so they get little press coverage. This does not mean that there should not be concerns about these issues, but global warming has turned into a political football, and as such has garnered a considerable amount of control of the economy and the purse strings that keep the national and global economy buzzing.

I would not argue the fact that the earth is getting warmer. Studies and data suggests that in many places (but not all) the earth has been warmer more consistently for the last 25 years than any other comparable time in recorded history. This however does not make a looming disaster. The earth’s temperatures and CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly over the course of it’s existence. The EPA’s website on global warming even admits that the reliability of data and assumptions based on that data deteriorate quickly as we go back in time.
Time is an excellent way to determine if it is even plausible (does it make sense?) that humans could have created this pending disaster, and if all the hand wringing and expense will do anything to mitigate it. I freely admit my bias up front, and would argue that it wont.

If we look at things from a percentage of the time the planet has been around, we get an interesting, but somewhat difficult to grasp picture of our timeline. The current accepted age of the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years (plus or minus about 1%-45 million years). Science believes the first evidence of humanoid creatures (“Lucy”) developed approximately 3.6 million years ago (range 3.0-3.6 million years). If that is that case, humans have existed on the planet for 0.8% of the planets existence. (Less than 1 percent).

In 1709, Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736), invented the first alcohol thermometer, and in 1714 the mercury thermometer, what we use as the modern thermometer. He also invented the temperature scale that is used in the US, which bears his name. This means that we have been able to fairly accurately measure and record temperature for about 300 years. This is about 0.00007% of the planets existence. The industrial revolution, which is arguably the beginning of when man was capable of creating the greenhouse gasses that are blamed for “man made global warming” occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830 (Historians can’t agree on this either). Most would agree that it was in full swing by 1830, which means that it occurred about 175 years ago. This is important because we have only had the capacity to create these gasses for 0.00004% of the planets existence. Volcano’s, fires and other natural phenomenon have been creating these gasses since the beginning of the planet. Some studies accepted by the EPA suggest that for two thirds of the last 400 million years (26.4 million years) CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than they are today.

Scientists believe that by observing and measuring certain conditions found in the natural world, and thru technologies like carbon dating, that they can fairly accurately describe and give approximate ideas of what the global temperatures were like. According to the EPA’s website on global warming, they believe the accuracy of their estimations is “pretty close” up to about 900 A.D., and the accuracy deteriorates significantly thereafter due to lack of reliable data. If we assume that our data and estimates are accurate, we can extrapolate that we have a “pretty good idea” of what the climate was like for just over 1100 years. If we look at this as a percent of the planets existence, we “know” what the earth’s climate has been for 0.0003% of the planets history.

Now, lets look at it in terms that are a bit easier to grasp. If we break the entire existence of the planet into 1 calendar year, we can get a timeline of when we showed up and when our activities began to influence the planet. Doing the math, (60 sec X 60 min X 24hrs X 365.25 days {don’t forget leap year}), there are 31,557,600 seconds in a year. Dividing 4.5 billion by the seconds in a year, we find that 1 second is roughly 142.6 years. Humanoid existence (3.6 million years) would be the equivalent of 25246 seconds, or 7 days. The first humanoid essentially showed up on December 24th. So, from January 1st, until just before Christmas, there was no sign of anything that resembled man. Now, again, assuming we have accurate data and have made accurate estimates, we “know” what the world was like for about 7.8 seconds, or put another way, since Dec 31st at 11:59:52. Taking it a bit further, we discovered how to measure temperature about 2 seconds before the year-end, which would be Dec 31st at 11:59:58. We have been in the industrial revolution for just over 1 second, which puts us at Dec 31st at 11:59:59.

Based on this model, we have populated the earth for about 7 days, and can “guestimate” the earth’s climate for just over 7 seconds. We can “accurately” describe the world’s climate for 2 seconds. We have only been able to influence the global climate for just over 1 second. Does it make any sense that we are capable of completely altering the world’s climate in 1/31557600 of the planets existence? I’d argue that it is pretty presumptuous of us to believe that we have that much power or influence.

Now, is the world getting warmer? Of course it is, at least temporarily. There is an abundance of geological evidence that suggests abrupt climate changes have occurred throughout the Earth's history, and human existence arose during a period of “relative” climate stability. As I stated before, there is evidence that it was considerably warmer, and we know that ice ages have occurred several times, which of course are considerably colder. 25 years is not a global disaster in the making, it is a nano-blip in the timeline of global history and based on the model I presented above it is 1/5th of a second. The human race will one day come to an end, and the earth will just shrug and think to itself “glad to be rid of those parasites” and begin the process of healing itself. It won’t be due to man made global warming.

Do not confuse pollution with global warming. We have been absolutely horrible stewards of our natural resources and beauty. There are very few places that do not show evidence of human activity, and as such, are to some degree or another are polluted. Pollution does not equal global warming. If we want to focus our energy on saving the planet, lets clean up the messes that we have created over the short period of time we’ve been here.

[46&2]

    

Great letters. One thing I might add, is that your statement:

"I would not argue the fact that the earth is getting warmer. Studies and data suggests that in many places (but not all) the earth has been warmer more consistently for the last 25 years than any other comparable time in recorded history."

Is true, however, average global temperatures have not risen at all since 1998. The warming trend seemed to halt in 98. Just adds a little extra fuel for the argument.


Another thing I might note, is so many people cling to the IPCC's reports as "ABSOLUTE TRUTH". Well I took the time to sit down and actually read their entire Fourth Assessment Report.

The ENTIRE report is RIDDLED with terms such as likely, highly likely, possibly, unlikely, doubtful, not believed, surely, some general consensus as to, mostly, may have, could have, may not have, etc.

Almost every claim they make in the Report is supported with one of the aforementioned words or statements. For example, here is an excerpt.

"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM} "

You can't read more than a few sentences without encountering the words. The whole report reads like the diary of a 13 year old girl speculating on wether her boy crush likes her or her best friend better.

[TacoRunner]

HOLY MOLY

I never voted for this A hole
I told others not to vote for him
But all those people with their heads in the sand, truly believed that when he said "its time for change in this nation" that he meant it was going to be change in your favor, are stupid. I wish to GOD that we could get a president in the WhiteHouse with big enough balls to pull out of all overseas obligations and just tell the whole world to suck a big one, that we will not stand by the signed agreements that these psycho's agreed to. Start fresh and end this BS.

It's time for a JOHN WAYNE to take control. I impeached Gov. Gray Davis. of California. It's time to do the same with this A-Hole.

I have had it with all this Horse Crap about global warming. Hell even the UN has does it own studies and found that we are not getting hotter that we are infact getting cooler as a globe. So why all the BS about it earth in danger form politician's and such. BECAUSE it a power play, they are trying to appeal to your inner good, your nobility, your ignorance. With the advent of Global warming, you allowed idiots to take control. They pulled a used car sales man tactic on you. Its a scam. The whole science of Global warming is made up.

Cap and Trade = Communism
Socialized Health Care = Communism
Obama = Communism
Green Piece = Communism

[germ]

I never voted for this A hole
I told others not to vote for him
But all those people with their heads in the sand, truly believed that when he said "its time for change in this nation" that he meant it was going to be change in your favor, are stupid. I wish to GOD that we could get a president in the WhiteHouse with big enough balls to pull out of all overseas obligations and just tell the whole world to suck a big one, that we will not stand by the signed agreements that these psycho's agreed to. Start fresh and end this BS.

I would agree with you to a point. The problem is that most of this stuff was started long before obama and his merry band of idiots took office. It actually started long before he was even a senator (which of course we all know wasn't very long). Based on lots-o-research, I would guestimate that this started somewhere around the end of Nixon's presidency and possibly even sooner, though I can't find any credible evidence to support this. It was certainly being mulled around Ford's administration, but the details were different then. Nobody was talking global warming, but they were coming up with other "world disasters" that were used to distract the american people while the goverment went and did "whatever" behind thier veils. (remember, there was a "swine flu" epidemic/pandemic in 1976 as well, it just never got traction enough to turn into the crisis they wanted it to be). Not many people remember, but there was great consternation about the next ice age that was predicted in the early/mid 1970's. Problem was nobody could figure out how to capitalize on it (financially or politically), so it just died on the vine.

I've said it before, but I think Obama was brought in as "the closer". The guy who pitches the ninth inning to seal the victory. We (the American people) need to wake up, look around, and ensure that he is not able to pass dubious legislation based on fear and made up crisis. He's already shown that this is how he works. "We must act now", "there is no time to waste".

Erik