So insistent has been the global warming crowd that they refuse to review “their” science or open it up to peer reviews to those they call nonbelievers. As a result, the theory of global warming is always discussed as a fact, even though it has not been scrutinized.
If you think we are slaves now, just wait until this thing goes into full effect.
If you are happy, rattle your chains.– jtl, 419
This is the second installment in a two-part series. Read the first installment, “The new world order is being fueled by Green propaganda.”
Last week, I wrote about the repressive Green movement that has become integrated within the Democratic Party as we move toward the 2016 election. I pointed out that, according to a recent Breitbart report, President Obama and others in his administration have said 23 times over the years that climate change is the gravest threat to the planet even in the wake of the bloody attack on Paris last month that claimed the lives of 128 innocents.
There is so much nonsense surrounding global warming and the threat it poses to mankind I decided to focus on a single green technology that is held dear by some Americans: the electric vehicle (EV). I pointed out how incredibly expensive the EV is, its limited range and how, to date, there’s no dependable infrastructure to stop and charge the prohibitively expensive battery. None of it made any sense to me. Instead it seemed like an ill-thought-out fantasy for a Utopian world — not a world that blows winds of war between Western democracies and extremist Islam and not a world in which the United States must continually roll over its $19 trillion in federal debt.
So I looked beyond the electric car and thought hard about what is really behind it and all other Green schemes that are said to have the backing of thousands of scientists.
I found that there is something far bigger in the mix than just reducing carbon for the simple reason that the carbon backers are obsessed with cleaning up the globe. They have plenty of support from Western progressives to confirm man-made global warming — a theory that media, presidents, parliaments and power brokers assume to be an inalienable fact. If the theory is ever widely accepted as fact, it will provide liberals with a powerful tool to secure political power for generations.
To illustrate the panic over man-made lunacy, let me return to the automobile. I pointed out that electric cars run on electric engines powered by large and expensive lithium batteries. I showed the replacement price on a new automobile lithium battery is between $5,000 and $30,000 and that even at these incredible price ranges electric cars have a short travel distance before they need to be recharged.
There are two crucial problems for the electric car. There may not be enough of the element lithium on Earth to power even 1 million cars, as Obama has plans for, never mind the tens of millions of cars that would be needed to significantly reduce carbon monoxide emissions.
William Tahil, author of the research paper “The Trouble with Lithium,” estimates the world’s lithium reserves at about 4 million tons. He claims the production of hybrid and electric cars will soon tax the world’s production of lithium.
What I also took into consideration was the cost of massive lithium mining, which creates carbon pollutants.
Electricity is produced from the heat of burning another energy source. That No. 1 source in the United States, which is home to the largest reserves in the world, is coal.
Last month, The Washington Post reported:
[I]n areas supplied by dirtier power, like China, India and even the Netherlands, which is on track to miss ambitious emissions targets set for 2020, the electric-car jump has slimmer payoffs. In some cases, it could even worsen the overall climate impact of driving, experts say.
The dilemma highlights the crucial importance of clean electricity in global goals to slash greenhouse-gas emissions, the focus of a December summit in Paris. Cutting transportation-related emissions can help — but not if pollution is simply shifted from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, which generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity.
A year ago, The Economist weighed in with an even darker future of the electric car:
Overall, the research shows that electric cars are cleaner than those that rely on internal-combustion engines only if the power used to charge them is also clean.
The Lithium Lady
This brings us right back to carbon emissions and the strangest political relationship I have ever discovered. It is the 1980s marriage of conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Greenpeace and the anti-nuclear war peaceniks in Great Britain.
The 1970s were a terrible period for Britain. Inflation was rampant; it was becoming difficult for Downing Street to make good on its foreign debts; and labor relations between Thatcher and the coal unions were at rock bottom. To save the queen and the empire, Thatcher had to make some tough choices. Chief among them was to tear apart the coal unions. The Thatcher government decided it could control the price of coal, which was killing Great Britain, through a creative change in the words — words that would launch a thousand political careers and do precious little to clean up the atmosphere.
The first warnings were about the hole in the ozone layer in the atmosphere. Scientists said there was a steady decline of about 4 percent in the total volume of ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere. The fix was rather simple: Ozone-depleting substances were banned. What followed in the 1970s was another indisputable theory: global cooling. It was argued by organizations like Greenpeace. They said that the cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere would culminate in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but it was popular for a while because of the slight downward trend of temperatures between the 1940s and the 1970s. When that didn’t pan out and the Thatcher government was on the brink, her think tank came up with a radical idea: global warming.
Columnist Christopher Booker of The Telegraph explained in June 2010:
Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Thatcher, a shrewd conservative, understood you got what you paid for. By the 1990s, the British Conservative government, led by John Major, was in talks with scientists claiming that the planet faced global warming. The Conservative government warned about the dangers of global warming to a ready audience: the save-the-whales, anti-nuclear weapon lobby. In a clear case of government’s creating science for what it believes is the greater good, the Conservative government began offering generous grants to climatologists and scientists that backed the cabinet’s claims — even though those men and women were, at best, overzealous or, at worst, prostituting themselves out. Their voices drowned out those of many scientists who argued that solar activity, not carbon, was influencing temperature changes.
It all suited the Conservatives, who continued to move away from a coal-based economy and to a nuclear power-based economy. Those who fell for this folly either out of ignorance, vanity or greed fell in line. Many retained the same zealotry they had over saving the whales and stopping the destruction of the ozone layer.
So insistent has been the global warming crowd that they refuse to review “their” science or open it up to peer reviews to those they call nonbelievers. As a result, the theory of global warming is always discussed as a fact, even though it has not been scrutinized. And it has become an essential way for Western democracies to hamstring growth in the developing world. In the continents of Africa and nations like India, arresting global warming by burning carbon fuels prevents their achieving their own industrial revolution. After all, doing things like burning coal is borderline criminal unless it is burned at a power plant to recharge fantastically expensive lithium batteries made for cars that only the rich and famous can drive.
To progressive opinion makers such as Obama, former vice president Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and a great many Congressmen, saving the Earth is essential in expanding their powers and the influence of government. Sadly, Americans are becoming convinced of global climate change.
Yours in good times and bad,
A Handbook for Ranch Managers. In keeping with the “holistic” idea that the land, the livestock, the people and the money should be viewed as a single integrated whole: Part I deals with the management of the natural resources. Part II covers livestock production and Part III deals with the people and the money. Not only would this book make an excellent basic text for a university program in Ranch Management, no professional ranch manager’s reference bookshelf should be without it. It is a comprehensive reference manual for managing the working ranch. The information in the appendices and extensive bibliography alone is worth the price of the book.
You might also be interested in the supplement to this Handbook: Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual.