Global warming and the United Nations

Do you agree the United Nations has a history of inefficiency, corruption and, in recent decades, hostility to American interests? Are you aware of the ramifications of our Democrat-led administration's willingness to subject Americans to this foreign organization's control, starting with gun control?Do you think they have a greedy eye on a global currency - as our federal reserve bank - in printing money on demand with nothing to substantiate its value other than faith? Can you image in the future catastrophic inflation - like the Chinese experienced shortly before the outbreak of WWII requiring wheel barrows of printed paper in exchange for a loaf of bread? The UN has jumped into Al Gore's global warming fiction with both feet and two eager hands. Is it not obvious they, like the environmental "alarmists," do not know if the climate is getting hotter or colder? Are they just guessing? Thanks to the Montreal Protocol of 1973, the UN enforced environmental legislation on refrigerants resulting in high increases for refrigerators that prevented the world's poor from protecting their food, thus creating the opposite effect to reduce the death rate. Their prediction of 50 million environmental refugees by 2010 occurred, but due to warfare. How about all the flooding fears for the poor Pacific nations? Did any disappear under a rising sea? In spite of their failed predictions, they have a "scientific review body" called the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (recognized by the Kyoto Protocol of 1995 but rejected by the US and Australia) with over 2,000 so-called scientists (who are actually bureaucrats, governmental representatives, some individuals with self-aggrandizing agendas and a few climate scientists) who are manipulated by savvy scientist-politicians to put out periodic papers on "climate change." Do you think they know if the world is getting hotter or colder or, more importantly, what causes it? The Kyoto Treaty went into effect in early 2005 but before the year was out, the industrialized countries realized the emission reduction levels were unrealistic. Remember the acid rain controversy? After a 10-year study, the U.S. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project in 1990 concluded "...prior fears of widespread acid rain damage from industrial pollution to lakes and forests were largely unfounded...most acidity in lakes was traced to natural causes." But expensive legislation was passed and the consumer is still paying for the effort. NASA senior climatologist Roy Spencer presented an easily understandable composition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: to climate alarmists that extra carbon dioxide is causing surface "warming tendency", he countered with " processes keep most of the resulting temperature rise from ever occurring. So, the extra (man-caused) CO2 does not really cause a warming tendency." Spencer adds, "It has been calculated (theoretically) that if there were no other changes in the atmosphere, a doubling of CO2 content would result in only one degree Fahrenheit surface warming." From accumulated data, "real" scientists conclude that man-caused CO2 emissions contribute one molecule of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air over a five-year period (do the math), of which 590 percent is absorbed by earth plants and ocean micro-organisms and part of the remainder is expelled into outer space through infrared radiation. The study also revealed that in the last 100 years, the average world temperature had increased by one percent and most of that was before 1940 - before the massive human-use of fossil-fuel energy. So, is climate change caused by man or nature? Shouldn't we be wary of short-term benefits for politicians' "feel-good legislation" at the expense of long-term negative consequences for the rest of the country? Have you heard any environmentalist praise the upside of CO2 (which is one part carbon and two parts oxygen)? That without it, plants and marine micro-organisms will not survive? That it is nature's fertilizer? Why do you suppose humans invented greenhouses to stimulate plant growth? Please note, the hysteria on global warming provides opportunities for bureaucrats to visit exotic places around the world in luxury so that they can tell you how to live your life. Can anyone claim there has been global warming reduction to show for the resulting economic pain?

********** Published: July 25, 2013 - Volume 12 - Issue 15