The original document at http://freeassemblage.blogspot.

com contains live links to

reference.

>Do we need to increase our footprints and warm up globally, to prevent record
cold temps from arriving even faster?<

Twenty years ago today, James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Energy
Committee — in a room kept intentionally warm by committee staff — that the
atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels and forests was already perceptibly influencing Earth’s climate.

Then, as now, Dr. Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, was pushing beyond what many of his colleagues in climatology were
willing to say — at least publicly.

His critics show few signs of ever accommodating the ideas he now presses, which
include a prompt moratorium on new coal-burning power plants until they can
capture and store carbon dioxide and a rising tax on fuels contributing
greenhouse-gas emissions, with the revenue passed back directly to citizens,
avoiding the complexities of “cap and trade” bills. Andrew C. Revkin NYTimes
Science

Climate realists around the world have contended for years that the real goal of
alarmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his followers is to use the fear of
man-made global warming to redistribute wealth.

On Monday, one of Gore's leading scientific resources, Goddard Institute for Space
Studies chief James Hansen, sent a letter to Barack and Michelle Obama
specifically urging the president-elect to enact a tax on carbon emissions that
would take money from higher-income Americans and distribute the proceeds to the
less fortunate. Noel Sheppard (Bio) NewsBusters

The "inconvenient truth" Al Gore wanted us to believe, which some people still
believe, in spite of the mounting evidence of record low temps, and in spite of
science that says those carbons and other pollutants in the atmosphere are keeping
out the sun rather than trapping it inside, must be his worst nightmare: the hell
he predicted is not going to burn us after all. It may freeze some of us. We may
be in a minor ice age even as you read this.

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity
is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age," says the
website Winningreen. "What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a
relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most
interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it
has been since the last Ice Age ended."

This is a map of the "Ocean thermohaline conveyor system that transports warm,
salty waters into the North Atlantic, tempering the climate of Northern Europe. If
the conveyor should collapse on its return loop near Greenland and Iceland,
Britain's climate could resemble Labrador." The next paragraph shows how that
might happen.

"Now that the 1998 El Nino is disappearing off the 10 year scale, things are
looking a bit different," says the website Alex Jones' Prison Planet. "Annual
North American temperature since 1998 (11 years of data) is falling over the
period at a rate of 0.78(F)/decade or 7.8(F)per century. At this rate we will be
in an ice age within 5 decades." [emphasis added]

Both sides say the sky is falling. How can both sides be right? "[S]cientists and
officials involved in the intensifying international debate on how to deal with
global warming say it has taken the United States far too long to put the issue
front and center..." But which side is the "issue"? As President Obama put it in
his innaugation speech, "science will be restored to its right place" and will be
evidence-supported.

Who is to determine which side has the backing of the evidence since it seems to
be politically "correct" for the left to claim we are undergoing "global warming",
yet other evidence which is not compiled by politically correct scientists says
North America is cooling fast enough to put us into the next ice before I die.

If we follow the politics of Al Gore and James Hansen, we risk, if they are wrong,
bringing on the next ice age even sooner. This current winter season and the
season of '07-'08 set records for low temperatures and snowfall.

What if the act of increasing our carbon footprints staves off the ice age until
we can put scientific evidence that is not contradictory to proper use?

China, which has increased its footprint 1000 fold over the last decade has record
winters. The U.S. which has reduced slightly its own footprint, has also had
record winters, and the average annual temperatures here have been measured as
dropping. So do we need to decrease our footprints and warm up globally, or
increase our footprints to prevent those record cold temps from coming even
faster?

Or, are the choices actually to do the contrary of one of those actions: decrease
our footprints and chill down (since the left claims we are warming); or increase
our footprints to chill down since the other scientists claim the carbons are
keeping the heat out?

"Evidence driven" scientific policies are not made in a vacuum. The policies are
specifically metaphysical in nature. And metaphysical policies of the government
are political. Whoever wins this "evidence driven" policy debate will probably
never know which side is correct.

If we are actually experiencing global warming while at the same time experiencing
the onset of the next ice age, everything we do to prevent warming will cause us
to freeze that much faster.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of
the LLC and are:
© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/