Global Warming: A Reality Check

By Dr. Kenneth Miller

The threat of a world-wide cataclysm brought on by man made climate manipulation

has plagued international thought for at least 15-years. The United Nations, which was
formed in 1945 to allow member-countries a forum to stave off future world wars, began
holding conferences annually in 1995. The purpose of those conferences, referred to as
“Conference of Parties,” or “COPs,” was to address the phenomenon initially known as,
“Global Warming.” A “HOAX” fabricated by groups following in-line with the “Earth
First!” movement begun in 1979. Although the “Earth First!” group did not form the
theory of Global Warming, it was the nexus by their protection of the earth against
deforestation and dam building to protect wildlife habitats. This provided the catalyst for
the concept of Global Warming, which is believed to be caused by the increase of “Green
House Gases,” specifically CO2. Should this thought be entertained as true? CO2
occupies less than 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere. It is used by every tree, bush and
blade of grass in the process of photosynthesis to produce oxygen; presumably being
hampered by massive world-wide deforestation.
The concept of “Global Warming” should have been a hard sell to the world leaders.
However, with the help of the sensationalist Hollywood movie makers, visual learning
was allowed to assist the sale of this hoax. As stated earlier, the first United Nations
COP was in 1995. Hollywood created a futuristic movie that same year entitled,
“Waterworld.” The underlying theme of the movie was to illustrate an affect of Global
Warming and the melting of the polar ice caps. The problem is, even if all the ice were
melted, water levels would probably not be affected. My support of this theory follows
that water expands when frozen and contracts when melted. If all of the ice were to melt,
water levels would most likely drop. The movie portrayed water levels so high, even the
tallest buildings were under several hundred feet of water. By using the unusually warm
temperatures of the 1990’s and the seemingly natural American short-term memory to its
advantage, the Environmental Activists were able to hood-wink nations into blindly
buying into their hoax. Let me elaborate. In the 1970’s, as a young man, I remember
being bombarded with the belief that we were approaching a “New Ice Age.” Jimmy
Carter stated, in part, “The extremely cold weather this winter…” in his Report to the
American People, Feb. 2, 1977, justifying the first of many to follow energy propositions.
However, the visual learning aids did not stop there. “Waterworld” was followed by,
“The American President,” in 1995; “The Core,” in 2003; “The Day After Tomorrow,” in
2004; and “The Happening,” in 2008. All produced to scare a world population into a
deviant form of thinking. That “Man” had a power greater than the forces of nature to
change the tides of natural occurrences. A futile form of thinking similar to believing the
“Duck and Cover” drills we practiced in the 1960’s would save us from being harmed in
the event of a nuclear war.
Geologically, our earth has gone through innumerable heating and cooling cycles based
on any number of events, whether by global land placement or formations, solar flare
activity, or the location of our planetary solar system in relation to its galactic
movements. The list goes on. To presume our minuscule life forms can modify climate
change is as asinine as assuming our powers are equal to or greater than those of God.
Man’s existence on this world’s playing field has been less than 10,000 years. Global
climate changes with extremes greater than those experienced by man have existed
exponentially beyond that.
The coming together of “World Leaders,” who by all intents and purposes may not be a
compilation of “Great Minds,” at a summit in Copenhagen in 2009 is to bring to light a
question regarding a possible underlying agenda not being revealed. Perhaps those
foreign governments are hiding a new form of Human Control Techniques. Preposterous,
you say? Consider their goal of reduced carbon emissions and Green House Gases. Why
is the United States always the hardest to be hit with any restrictions?
To attain the goal of reducing emissions to the levels intended (which is 5-6% below
the 1990 standard for all industrialized nations, except the United States which is 7%
below the 1990 standard) is to increase fuel taxes to such an extent as to make it
undesirable for people to drive their motor vehicles. Transportation companies will off-
set their losses by passing those costs onto the consumer which equates to more cost
increases. In the end, mankind becomes enslaved to government on a global scale. As a
result, the greatest government ever established on the planet, the United States, by virtue
of its charitable work and sacrifices for the benefit of others, will suffer the same fate as
the mythical land of Atlantis - being remembered only as a foot-note in history.
According to Wikipedia, there have been at least four major ice-ages, and possibly even
more minor ones dating back as long ago as the Proterozoic Eon, approximately 2.4
billion years ago. Can it be feasibly recognized that we may only be suffering the same
climate cycles as experienced by previous life-forms that inhabited this planet before us?
If so, why implement vain attempts to control it instead of using our technology to
improve our chances of sustained existence beyond extinction. We have a greater
advantage over any species heretofore inhabiting this planet. By using our abilities to
create technology, instead of hindering it, we can enhance our ability to continue on a
planetary scale. Of course, an extra-terrestrial event could bring that to a screeching halt.