THEY'RE OUT TO GET US!
GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

By: Phil Brennan

It's become the standard response of  a lot of my fellow anti-global warming conservatives that back in the seventies the same "liberals" who are now promoting the warming scam were equally shrill about a coming ice age.  

Nice try, guys. But the problem is that it wasn't crazy liberals warning about approaching glaciation, as my e-mail pal Ann Coulter wrote recently. It was nothing less than some of the nation's top climate experts who were then still sane and honest. 

Listen up - here's what was then the prevailing opinion among the climatologists:

"The present interglacial interval -- which has now lasted for about 10,000 years -- represents a climatic regime that is relatively rare during the past million years, most of which has been occupied by colder, glacial regimes. Only during about 8 percent of the past 700,000 years has the earth experienced climates as warm or warmer than the present.  

"The penultimate interglacial age began about 125,000 years ago, and lasted for approximately 10,000 years. Similar interglacial ages -- each lasting 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years and each followed by a glacial maximum -- have occurred on the average every 100,000 years during at least the past half-million years. 

"During this period, fluctuations of the northern hemisphere ice sheets caused sea level variations of the order of 100 meters."  

Who said that? None other than the National Academy of Sciences! (Understanding Climate Change, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1975 -- page 181).  

On page 189 they asked "When will the present interglacial [period] end?  

Their answer: "Few paleoclimatoligists would dispute that the prominent warm periods (or interglacials) that have followed each of the terminations of the major glaciations have had durations of 10,000 plus or minus 2000 years. In each case, a period of considerably colder climate has followed immediately after the interglacial interval. 

"Since about 10,000 years have passed since the onset of the present period of prominent warmth, the question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of a period of colder climate.  

"The question remains unsolved. If the end of the interglacial is episodic in character, we are moving toward a rather sudden climatic change of unknown timing ... if on the other hand, these changes are more sinusoidal in character, then the climate should decline gradually over a period of a thousand years."  

Another study prepared for the 95th Congress in 1978 agreed with the National Academy of Sciences position as explained in the above-quoted study. The document "Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy and Potential" warned:  

"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."  

In 1997 I wrote that this was the prevailing opinion among paleoclimatologists; it was a case of the past being prologue. If the earth underwent regular cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods, and the geological record proved that to be the case, then obviously we are at the end of the present between-ice-ages period.  

To sum up, the historical record shows that the earth undergoes periods of glaciation lasting about 90,000 years, followed by an interglacial, or warming period of 10,000 to 12,000 years.  

The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and as I written in the past, unless Al Gore and his fellow would-be masters of the Universe have somehow managed to repeal what  history has shown to be an iron clad law of nature, we are heading not for increasing global warming but instead for a new period of glaciation. 

Since 1997 I have written extensively on the evidence that a new ice age is aborning on my personal website, Wednesday on the Web, and  on NewsMax.com,   but that is not the matter I want to discuss here. Let it suffice to say that there is far more solid evidence for global cooling than there is for the global warming fantasy. 

What concerns me at the moment is that the media-fed hysteria might well cause the nation - and the world - to accept the most punitive kind of restrictions on our way of life - restrictions which will drive a dagger through the heart of our economy to prevent something from happening that is simply not happening . 

Mr. Gore and his fellow alarmists have yet to explain exactly what kind of fetters they plan to fasten around our ankles in order to stop the planet from barbecuing us but you can get a good idea just by reading Gore's absurd book "Earth In the Balance." Among the shackles he wants to put on us is the elimination of the internal combustion engine - a modest step that would get rid of all those pesky cars we insist on driving to get where we have to go. 

In England, where they have gone completely bonkers over this phony global warming threat they have already begun to force anyone in London who owns and drives an SUV in old London Towne to pay $50 a day for the privilege. It has also been suggested that Brits be allowed only one flight as year, and forced to pay exaggerated "carbon taxes" on their air fares. 

There's also talk of imposing World War II rationing. Most Americans weren't around in those days so they are ignorant of what rationing meant. Meat was tightly rationed - a nice juicy steak was worth its weight in gold - gasoline was rationed - you had to have a sticker on your windshield showing just how much gas you could buy with the coupons Uncle Sam gave you - in most cases not much more than a thimble full for those who were deemed to be doing non-essential motoring. Tires were unobtainable.  

Housing was scarce, rents controlled. The people of the richest, most well-endowed-with-natural-resources nation on the face of the earth,  toiled in an era of thread bare scarcity. After the war, some bureaucrats admitted that there was no   scarcity of many of the rationed goods and that the rationing of them was meant to force the folks back home to share in the rigors of warfare. Nice of them, wasn't it?  

Few experts will argue against the fact that  the cost of implementing the environmentalist grand scheme will be the eventual destruction of the nation's economy. Americans will find themselves living in the early 19th century, shivering in the winter and roasting in the summer, and riding bicycles instead of driving cars.  Most Americans that is.  

Brother Gore and his friends, however,  have devised a means that will enable them to go on their merry way, spewing carbon emissions in every which way as they jet around the world in their private aircraft or hunker down in their many mansions using great gobs of electricity and driving their SUVs to their heart's content. They buy "carbon offsets: - the newest way of buying indulgences to prevent them from suffering the consequences of their environmental sins. They also sell them, by the way. Might just as well make a buck and like the Hawaiian missionaries of old, do well while doing good. 

At the root of the environmentalist's  motivation is their sheer hatred of mankind. To them man is evil, bent on despoiling the planet. Listen to the nuts over at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). They never shy away from the idea that the world would be better off without us nasty humans - if they had their way we'd all be eliminated and the planet turned over to crocodiles and other such   gentle critters who presumably would treat Mother Nature better we evil humans do. 

And who will enforce those draconian regulations and restrictions? Why the United Nations, of course - the driving force behind the Global Warming swindle. The peril, we are told, is worldwide so only an international body can deal with it.

So in one fell swoop our national sovereignty would be tossed into the junk science heap and we'd find ourselves the serfs in the new world order presided over by the Marxist  commissars of the  United Nations who would in their wisdom infirm us what we can and cannot do in the name of saving the planet from being consumed by out-of-control global warming. 

Al Gore has told us that we have to change our way of life. He hasn't spelled out the changes because if he did he'd be run out of town. If we want to avoid all of this we had better start demanding that Al Gore and his friends, his acolytes in Congress, and the UN bureaucrats, spell out exactly what they have in store for us. If they do, Americans will understand that they really are out to get us.