Ice Age Cometh?

Are you old enough to remember the ice age threat?

Well, I am. The pro-U.N., pro-globalist, rabid environmentalist crowd, warned of a coming end of times, global ice age (back in the 1970s if I remember right), and the solution was — you guessed it — big, big, and bigger government.

Strange solution, since the more totalitarian a society becomes, the less concern there is for human rights, including the right, I suppose, to a breath of fresh air.

Conservatives believe in limited government, the federalism of the U.S. Constitution, checks and balances . . . and since we do, we don’t believe in national and international environmental regulatory agencies of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats which are so constituted as to concentrate the legislative, executive, and judicial functions all in one place — what the founders called, the very definition of tyranny.

Nor do we believe in governing by crisis, real, perceived, or fabricated.

Crisis is a key word in the transformational dogma of the communist. Crisis is the point in their world outlook, where a thesis (for instance the U.S. Constitution, or a particular law under that Constitution) converges with an unforseen change in circumstances (an anti-thesis, and let’s call this one “global warming”), and as a result a new thesis arises in a quantum leap that totally negates the past (i.e., representative government, private property rights, and national sovereignty). A constitutional republic cannot operate on such a formula for making law or moral decisions and long survive a free people.

The environmental movement (and I am an environmentalist at heart, believing in a sense of stewardship over the earth) is in truth a political movement that sucks in the unsuspecting to a good cause. It preys on our natural inclinations to keep things nice and beautiful, and gives us a solution that will make life miserable and ugly.

Further, through the use of grants of various sorts, and a centralized educational model (also socialist) they produce scientists who confirm what they need confirmed.

All this aside, Mother Nature, along with dissenting scientists who aren’t on the take, is making things tougher on their informational monopoly. Whereas a Jan. 4, 2007, BBC News headline roared, “2007 to be ‘warmest on record,’” a recent issue of the Boston Globe notes, “a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.”

Indeed, the Globe story continues: “In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed . . . The death toll for the 10-day cold wave was the highest for any single weather event in Argentina in recent history.”

In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country’s 24 provinces. In August, Chile’s agriculture minister lamented “the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years,” which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

“Latin Americans weren’t the only ones shivering. University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that “unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.” Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand’s vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

“Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

“Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter to [U.N. Secretary-General] Ban pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, “the current US approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.”

And so we’re ready to compromise our sovereignty and surrender our mode of government for what scientists really haven’t a clue about? Heck, they can’t even get today’s forecast right, let alone divine the end of times, first creating a panic over a global ice age, next global warming, and now, could it be again, a global big chill. But this is what happens when we govern by crisis, centralize the educational mechanisms, look to international groups who envy and even despise us, and blindly trust a left wing dominated media to give us the news and show us the way.

* * *

Steve Farrell is a pundit at NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, president of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism, editor of the Liberty Letters, and author of the highly praised inspirational novel “Dark Rose.”

Tags: checks and balances, constitution, crisis, environmental protection agency, environmentalism, global warming, globalism, globalist, good cause, ice age, internationalism, internationalist, kyoto, left wing media, newsmax.com, political opportunism, steve farrell, united nations, wacko environmentalism