Global Warming Vs Science - Confrontation Inevitable, Huge Penalties Or Embarrassed World Leaders!

When the consciences of liberal thinkers - probablyeffect? Regardless: yes, no or maybe - it certainly
sparked initially by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"seems that world leaders of 1995-2010 should have
(DDT - insecticide, but also a killing poison); thenbeen more cautious about imposing drastic
evolving into "Save Endangered Species" movementsrestrictions upon industrial activities, with huge financial
- finally morphing into the "Save the Planet frompenalties upon civilization and its continuation (prestige
Human Global Warming" ideology - should there notof the UN notwithstanding).
have been a real scientific inquiry beforehand -However, once there was general acceptance of the
probing "natural" causes prior to allocating blame ontheory that human emissions were the causal-factors
civilization's carbon emissions? Before the UN'sof global warming (thus the concern over ultimate
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" was setplanet inhabitability), the immense power, prestige
up (clearly to solidify the jump-to-conclusion ofand influence of the United Nations (and its
human-cause) - in view of the obviousness of punyIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) came
man compared to the gigantic forces of nature:into play - solidifying the assumed-conclusion,
earthquakes (from continent-sized tectonic platessweeping the worlds of both climatology and
shifting), hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions -common man. To supportive climatologists the
and, certainly our sun (minor by galactic standards,rewards were many: career-enhancing awards,
but to planet Earth, overwhelmingly powerful) -grants, articles to be published - even the Nobel Prize
should not natural causes have been considered andCommittee was convinced. Overlooked or dismissed
eliminated first?were articles critical of this jump-to-conclusion, one
Considering the drastic consequences upon the USsigned by over thirty-one thousand scientists and
that such ideological thinking was rushing to impose,students of science, arguing that the matter was not
should not the first undertaking have been to solidlyproven scientific fact - the signatures and challenge
prove the conclusion; the second, to evaluate thewere ignored, the conventional wisdom sweeping
most probable cause - our sun? In his "Warning in theacross the world. Was it not predictable that
Stars", scientist David Archibald addresses the issueoccasionally some data points would be discovered
head-on, "If 'climate' is not a random walk, then wethat did not quite support the theory? (But, if so, so
can predict climate if we understand what drives it.what - if a bit of data modification is required, or
The energy that stops the Earth from looking likesome data becomes "carelessly lost"; or even if
Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level and type ofchallenging articles by not-quite-convinced
that energy does change. So the Sun is a good placeclimatologists are blocked from being published - what
to start, if we want to be able to predict climate."counts is that the theory is correct, right?) Then, of
Scientists like Dr. Archibald describe what the sun hascourse, some embarrassing emails were leaked, a
done recently and also over the past two thousandmuted outcry by the media was heard (briefly) -
years: from glacial geologic records of Southerncalling indignantly to "shoot the messenger" - no
Alaska; from Carbon 14 remnant-records in strata;focusing on the revealed bogus science. Eventually,
from ice-rafted debris in sea-bed cores of the Norththere was some admitted embarrassment, some
Atlantic; from the temperatures of North Atlanticresignations by UN "scientists" (however, the "issue"
seas; from lake sediment in southwestern Alaska;having been successfully "swept under the rug", life
from solar activity and from the consequences ofand politics apparently still continue apace - the
Earth's magnetic field upon the sun's solar windconventional wisdom of global warming - even
(charged solar particles): the increasing turbulentdespite a bitter winter - still holding sway).
motions of the Earth's molten metal core - whichThus (and shockingly - in supposed "science" - where
generates the Earth's magnetic field - which protectsa single data point should make or break a theory),
the Earth from powerful solar radiation - which stripsnothing has really changed (despite the email leaks
away Earth's atmosphere (aha, climate), etc. This isand the bitter winter, hardly evidence of "warming") -
solid, solid science - many aspects of a tremendouslythe UN's Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change
complex issue - not a simple (ideological "feel-good")was convened, 192 countries and their leaders
theory, with email-leaked-descriptions of a handful ofattending; President Obama was the featured
simple temperature readings (modified or omitted - asspeaker, making it clear that he and all attendees still
necessary to "prove" the theory). What a scientificbelieved in global warming - and caused by industrial
researcher is led to understand by the above andcarbon emissions (totally ignoring the exposure of the
similar articles, is a (head-nodding) comparison of thefamous "hockey-stick temperature chart" as a fraud);
(De Vries) 208-year solar cycle - to the observedpromising that the U.S. will impose emission limits and
200- year rhythm in glacial activity in Alaska (Wiles etpenalties (Cap-and-Trade bill and Environmental
al, 2004). Similarly, high-resolution analyses of theProtective Agency requirements); and that the US
Alaskan lake sediments suggest that century-scalewould lead the way in emission reparations to 3rd
shifts in the Holocene climate were modulated byworld nations - paying most of 10 $Billion soon, and
solar activity (Hu et al, 2003); etc. The scientific100 $Billion by 2020, annually.
message: our planet is huge, the interacting forcesA colossal credibility-vs-cost confrontation seems
are powerful and complex.inevitable, world-wide in scope - "Climate Change vs
Does all the above and similar scientific studies trulyClimate-Gate", pitting almost all world leaders: the
"prove" that there is global warming, or does itUnited Nations itself; the Nobel Prize Committee;
suggest a mere possibility, or nothing at all; is it trulyheads of all countries - against the verity of Science -
climate change or cyclic climactic patterns - orenormous consequences of economic and industrial
inter-acting influences of our solar system itself; orefficiency for the US, or egg-on-face embarrassment
some of the above - and, if any of it obtains, dofor world leaders, including President Obama, Al Gore
human-based carbon emissions have a major or trivialand the US main-stream media!