03.31.2009 0

An Alarming Trend

  • On: 04/22/2009 10:21:00
  • In: Energy Crisis, Global Warming Fraud, and the Environment
  • By Isaac MacMillen and Robert Romano

    Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

    That appears to be the Obama Administration’s latest tactic to achieve greater government control over liberty, the economy, and mankind’s ability to tread water. And again, it’s with phony science. Anxieties were raised last week to the highest levels yet about islands sinking into the sea, the elimination of entire nations, and even the reduction of coastlines to certain U.S. states if, of course, carbon emissions are not immediately reduced.

    According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the earth’s temperature is rising so fast that a “very, very scary” scenario will unfold. Island nations, especially those in the Caribbean, may disappear. Portions of Louisiana and Florida will go underwater, reducing the size of those states. New Orleans will be flooded. Said the Secretary, “I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes. This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. The island states in the world represent—I remember this number—one-half of 1 percent of the carbon emissions in the world. And they will—some of them will disappear.”

    Fortunately for the American people, the fragile economy, and beachgoers everywhere, Mr. Chu’s alarming prediction is based upon a faulty hypothesis: Melting ice caps would cause sea levels to rise. They would not. This is scientifically falsifiable claim. It is, in fact, provably false.

    As a matter of fact, ice displaces more water than does its liquid counterpart. According to Chemistry.About.com, “Ice floats because it is about 9% less dense than liquid water. In other words, ice takes up about 9% more space than water…” Therefore, ice—which expands when it freezes—takes up less space when it melts, and could not result in sea levels rising.

    One could even prove it. If Mr. Chu’s hypothesis is correct, then one should be able to fill up a glass of water, add some ice, place it in the sun, and then watch as the glass overflows. But it does not. In fact, the volume decreases. Therefore, Mr. Chu’s claim is falsified by a simple experiment. He would not even pass a 7th grade earth science exam.

    The only way for the sea levels to rise is if enough water melted off of land masses. To make matters worse for the Hot Earthers, some 97.5 percent of the water is already in the seas and oceans. And for the remaining 2.5 percent to find its way to the oceans is actually impossible, since much of that will always be water vapor trapped in the atmosphere. Also, topography plays a role: Given the presence of lakes, it is clear that not all water has an outlet to the sea. Another obstacle is plate tectonics: How far will mountain ranges be raised by rising plates, thus trapping more water in the form of snow and ice on mountain peaks?

    These are all factors that make sea levels rising at an alarming pace impossible. There is no cause for governmental policies to turn back the tides. King Canute could not do it, and neither can Uncle Sam.

    But never mind all that. Thankfully, Mr. Chu’s brand of alarmist sentiment is increasingly being rejected by the American people, who have not yet abandoned all reason for madness. Barack Obama notwithstanding.

    In the past year, the nation has undergone a fundamental shift in its attitude towards “man-made” global warming. At present, only 34 percent attribute it to human activity, while 48 percent believe it to be a “planetary trend.”

    One year ago, the numbers were 47 percent supporting man-made global warming and 34 percent believing it was due to natural causes—a near reversal of the present numbers.

    The mainstream media is lamenting the fact that, despite their attempts to push the Hot Earth Theory on the American people, global warming alarmism simply hasn’t taken hold, with as many as 41 percent stating that the media exaggerates global warming claims.

    Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm around the issue is causing the current administration to create a “crisis” to allow for government action on behalf of the environment. After all, it is Obama’s chief of staff who enumerated “The Emanuel Doctrine” for herding the masses: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

    Mr. Chu’s comments fit right into such a scheme. With the prospect of entire island nations disappearing from our backyard—and with residents in Florida and Louisiana losing some of their own—Americans are expected to follow one course of action: Panic!

    That allows the federal government to step in and comfort us, assuring us that it does indeed have a solution, and if we are willing to pony up a few extra tax dollars, it will solve the problem for us. Sound too good to be true? It is—the bureaucrats have conveniently left out the economic cost, and the fact that their actions are based on phony science, as noted by more than 700 scientists worldwide in a recent Senate minority report.

    The timing of Mr. Chu’s comment is perfect. With Congress now beginning work on sweeping environmental regulation legislation, the Administration is attempting to work the American people into a frenzy so as to give Congress the political cover it needs to pass legislation that would fail inspection before a cooler-headed populace.

    But, should Congress fail, the Hot Earthers have a backup plan: The EPA.

    Just this past Friday, the EPA classified the supposed side-effects of “man-made” climate change, including smog, heat waves, and storms, as a danger to “public health and welfare.” Under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the Massachusetts v. EPA case—a clear case of judicial activism based on yet more junk science that defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant—the EPA can now regulate carbon-emitting facilities and industries.

    And the EPA is no doubt more than eager to oblige. After all, its comrades on the environmental fringe just defined fat people as a threat to mankind’s survival.

    Additionally, green energy companies would receive massive influxes of federal subsidies. As the EPA ruling was announced, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that “[t]his pollution problem has a solution—one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

    Unfortunately, this has already been tried, and has failed to work as promised. In Iowa, the ethanol “solution” has proved at least as costly as gasoline, causing demand to be non-existent. Indeed, without the massive government subsidies that prop up the ethanol industry, it would likely fall flat on its face. Much like the Dyersville ethanol processing plan did last year.

    And in California, the heavy carbon regulations have not created the massive ‘green’ job growth expected; instead, companies are fleeing to less restrictive states, sending the Golden State into further budgetary problems as it grapples with its already-massive deficit. Without federal subsidies, California’s green jobs will be condemned to shrivel on the wilting vine.

    A recent study from the University of Rey Juan Carlos in Spain debunks the idea that creating those jobs through the destruction of hydrocarbon industries of oil, coal, and natural gas is a desirable goal. To wit, the most damning finding of all: “we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.”

    Clearly, the idea that “green jobs” will be created is merely an illusion. The jobs that exist rely heavily on federal subsidies of taxpayer dollars, and many of them will simply fail to materialize.

    But in the end, Congress isn’t as concerned as it pretends for the well-being of future generations—as if anyone still thought that, after the trillions of debt and deficit spending it has raked in over the past few years. As it broadened a tax credit for companies that used alternative fuels, it made sure to mention that the alternative fuel must be mixed with a (taxable) fossil fuel, leading environmentalists to complain that some companies are needlessly burning fossil fuels in order to quality for the tax credit.

    So despite its pretentious behavior, the federal government is not truly concerned about the environment. It is simply using global warming as a tool to spread panic and achieve its true aim: To seize and direct American industry; i.e. to control the means of production.

    And of that, Americans should be “very, very afraid.”

    Isaac MacMillen is a Contributing Editor to ALG News Bureau. Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.

    Copyright © 2008-2021 Americans for Limited Government