A LIBERTY SPHERE EXCLUSIVE--How Environmentalists Consort to Destroy American Free Enterprise

The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.

Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.

For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.

During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.

These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.

Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.

Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.

The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval
Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.

The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.

At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.

Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.

Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.

Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.

The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.

These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.

First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.

In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.

In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.

Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.

It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.

Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.

This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.

Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?

The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.

Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.

And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.

Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.

This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We are treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.

Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.

It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.

These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.

Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.

To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.

Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.

As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.