The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with the world’s first idea for government control of the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. Most scientists don’t believe in it - but that doesn’t matter. The presidential candidates from the two major parties in the US seem united in their quest to increase the role of the federal government in regulating climate. European nations have spearheaded international efforts. Politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists around the globe are in determined agreement on climate change. They want to do something about it.

US citizens currently face is a lack of choice from the two presidential candidates. During the latter part of the 20^th century, average temperature increased. Change is a winning campaign theme this season, so both candidates are firmly against it. In fact, Barack Obama has promised to work with one of the world’s leading opponents of warmth, Al Gore. Mr. Gore is well-known for his fanatic drive to make the earth colder. He has, for example, lobbied tirelessly for the rights of polar ice sheets, penguins and polar bears.

I’ve never been one to disparage a glacier, but that doesn’t obscure my recognition of the manipulation in Mr. Gore’s message when he attempts to convince us that we have no choice. Balderdash! If government can control the earth’s temperature, then it can be forced in either direction. More importantly, if politicians are going to assume the authority to manipulate climate, voters should decide which way it goes.

Mr. Gore lives in the southern United States where I can well understand that a few degrees of cooling seems like a good thing. Try walking around Baton Rouge, Louisiana on a hot, humid summer day. Given a democratic choice, the south will likely rise in favor of cooling. But put yourself in the middle of a snowstorm in northern Minnesota and your perspective will change dramatically. Several degrees warmer would be a relief. Make it colder and Minnesota will suffer physically and economically.

The point is fundamental. Whether warming or cooling is beneficial depends largely on where you live. Federal control of climate is therefore inappropriate. International control, even worse. Climate democracy requires local control. If the political discussion remains national during this election season, the candidates should – at the very least – choose vice presidential running mates who favor warming: at least acknowledging that the north matters.

Local climate control: how can it be done? - the facts are these. To say that climate engineering is in a pre-early stage of development is a vast understatement. There is no such thing. Governments can no more control climate globally than they can locally. We have a long, long way to go technologically before any such thing as climate democracy can become reality. Wake up and smell the crap – it’s a scam! They want to raise taxes and increase government control over earthly endeavors and you won’t get anything for it in return.

Rate this post:

(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)

 Loading ...