Political correctness bigger threat than global warming

The madness surrounding global warming has more to do with political correctness than science.

Although Earth Day was celebrated just last week, global warming is not yet a big news topic this year. As we approach the summer, however, we can expect to hear more about global warming.

During the winter months, people jokingly call for more global warming, and Al Gore’s summer time speeches are the line of several editorial cartoons, but to many people it is not a joking matter.

In 1995 U. N. scientists studied global warming and released a report to validate the phenomenon, although many of the 600 scientists have since openly voiced their reservations. Yet, that report has been a key support for laws protecting us from the threat of global warming.

In another study at the Cato Institute, the conclusion was that “there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

There is also the petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 doctorates, who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.” That petition was started by Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Not only is there dispute about the phenomenon, the data on which global warming is based also is questionable. Much of the analysis uses temperature readings in major cities.

As the cities grow, the temperatures rise and environmentalists see that as a global trend. The fallacy here is that temperatures in cities will naturally be higher than in smaller cities or rural areas, and they only represent a small sample of the globe.

Not only is that data inappropriate, historical data is constantly being re-written.

Some skeptics, climate-skeptic.com for example, have observed that NASA regularly revises temperature estimates, with recent temperatures going upward and older temperatures down.

Those revisions create, or at least exaggerate the variations and give the illusion that we are in jeopardy of burning ourselves up.

Ironically, other NASA adjustments in 2007, citing a Y2K bug, indicate that 1934 was the warmest year on record, that the 1930s could have been indicative of global warming using current standards and that we are now in a cooling cycle.

Finally, the warnings are based on the claim that global warming is man-made. Robinson believes that “there is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment.”

I don’t believe we have the ability to destroy, or save the planet. We can no easier control global warming than we can control the tamest of thunderstorms. It is common to use diversion when the truth of something is questionable.

As a diversion, global warming is being used to limit industrial expansion, promote world equality, cement environmentalists dreams for the planet, and worst of all, chop away at our human rights.

Global warming may certainly be a reality. One of the most reliable sources in the world, the Bible, says the earth will be burned up, but I don’t believe it will be because of the CFCs or combustion engines.

In spite of the logic, the warnings about global warming will continue, simply because it is now politically correct.

It would be politically incorrect to say global warming is a hoax.

That can be spun to mean we are for pollution or squandering our natural resources, or that we don’t care about the planet, when in fact, the climate change madness says we can’t afford to wait for more information will cause more damage than good.

Global warming is really a minor issue. The real threat is the trend that uses political correctness as the primary support for controversial subjects and political maneuvering to silence opposition.

By Dana Bell Opinion Editor