Global Warming or Global Cooling, by another name - Climate Change - sounds much sweeter

PRNewsFoto/NEWSWEEK

*Update* Read the recent reporting of evidence of fraud and cover-ups in favor of Climate Change.

Cap and trade (Read more about this here) is something that will have astronomical economic repercussions (Read more about this here); and beyond that, all that most people probably know about what it is as well as its implications is that it has been called some funny names - 'Cap and Tax' - by various Conservative commentators.  They may have a notion that it has an obscure connection to President Obama's administration's (as well as GE's and Former Vice President Gore's) 'green initiative'.  Generally, cap and trade is a way of controlling emissions of things considered to be hazardous for the environment and, thus, justify their government control or regulation.  Basically, a company that, in the act of conducting its business in order to produce its service or fabrication, creates or releases or discards the afore-mentioned hazardous 'thing' is limited by legislative regulation.  That is, laws govern the amount of these things that may be created, released or discarded.  In this way, the goal of protecting the environment is said to be addressed.

There are at least a couple of problems with (Read:  loopholes in) these types of programs:  1.  Businesses that are given 'credits' that tell them how much they may pollute can trade with other businesses in order to pollute more than their fair share - as determined by Congress; and 2.  Though one country, say, America, may decide to decrease its own release of toxins in this way - by using the cap and trade model; another country, say, China, may decide not to decrease its own release at all.  In fact it, as many developing nations do, may decide to bump up the activities that are said to create a destructive output of toxins.  

Thus, while America is trying to 'save the world' from pollution by regulating its behavior under the rubric of cap and trade; it is 'benefiting' - from whatever decreased pollution is actually realized; but so is the entire world.  Whether other countries are doing their part to decrease the release of hazardous pollutants; they can, theoretically, benefit from the actions of others.  However, the reality may be that no country (or person) is benefitting:  Whatever dent America's cap and trade policies are able to bring about is likely nullified by increased polluting by the developing nations.  What is the likely result of the cap and trade policies that result in sky-rocketing costs for Americans then?  Sky-rocketing utility bills for Americans.  And net zero gain in the release of pollutants.

In the same way that illegal aliens can benefit from the taxing of Americans and terrorists can benefit from America's constitutional rights; Americans may foot the bill for bad behavior under cap and trade.

Good intentions might excuse the bad judgment behind Congress' press for cap and trade legislation.  On the other hand, circumstantial evidence hints that there may be selfish motives behind not only its advance, but also climate change and the idea that government needs to control the actions of man, who is destroying the earth.

History

It was Global Cooling before it was Global Warming...and before it became Climate Change

'Going green' is a movement now - and one that most people are probably not averse to based on the core principles:  Conservation is a good thing.   To protect wildlife and nature from indifferent and uncaring destruction is noble.  Even if one does not subscribe to a theory that the future of the planet is at risk and that man is actively destroying the planet, he probably would not say there is anything wrong with recyling, reuse and reduction. 

The alarmist nature of the 'green' movement is probably, for those who object strongly to it, the reason for the push-back against it.  A person might just 'get with the program', if not for the branding of those who resist and question the 'settled science' (See the article with its new title here as well as the editorial rebuke of the article here) that concludes that the world may be brought to ruin by man as selfish, ignorant 'energy hogs'.  Additionally, there are suspect beneficiaries from the so-called crisis:  Producers of energy-saving goods; Former Vice President Al Gore; industries aggrandized by the 'green' movement - solar power and wind (except when the wind farm will be too close to certain, favored property); and companies like GE, whose subsidiaries create a cycle of promotion and profit by pushing products and behaviors from which it can (and does) reap the benefits.

The idea of closing the comment queue on the question of the existence and causation regarding climate change is probably what rankles most.

Not too long ago, Climate Change was Global Warming - until that didn't fit the progressive vision and narrative.  And before that, it was Global Cooling.  Writing  in 1974, Time magazine published a piece named, Science: Another Ice Age?):

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.[]The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: 'I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.'

And not only is there this embarassing shift of position (not to say that shifting as the evidence is embarassing at all as it is a part of science; it is embarassing to the protected vision and its protectors.) that calls into question whether today's certainty regarding climate change and predictions of disaster can be unquestioningly relied upon; there are the beneficiaries of the 'green' movement to raise the specter of doubt.

Al Gore and GE

To benefit people and the environment, the former Vice President and "Carbon Billionaire", Al Gore decided to invest in the production of a hybrid sports car.  While his lobbying apparently convinced the govenment of these United States to back the sports car producer's company with a loan; probably no explanation will satisfy most American citizens whose tax dollars are going to build cars that many of them cannot buy with a price tag of $89,000.

And even an admirer of GE can't help but notice the correlation between its pushing of the 'climate change' agenda and its own profit:

Let me state my bias upfront: I’m am admirer of GE and its chief executive, Jeff Immelt, and the company’s ecomagination initiative.

GE and Walmart are, as I have written, the most influential companies in America, and it’s great that they are serious about becoming more sustainable, and working with their customers and suppliers to do so as well.

But I can’t help but be struck by the extent to which GE’s clean energy businesses depend on federal and state tax and regulatory policy, along with grants and loans from the government.

Wind energy, solar energy, nuclear power, cleaner coal, smart grid initiatives, energy efficient appliances, compact fluorescent light bulbs -- all of these either benefit from current policy, get stimulus money or Department of Energy grants, stand to benefit if the climate-change legislation strongly supported by GE is enacted into law, or all of the above.[]Of GE’s portfolio companies, the star performer and recipient of GE’s biggest investment -- about $69 million -- is a company called A123 Systems that makes advanced lithium ion batteries and appears to have a very promising future.[]Here’s the thing, though. A123 has been given more than $600 million in grants, loans or tax credits  by the federal and state government to build a new plant in Michigan. They include a $249 million grant from the DOE’s Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative, another  $100 million in refundable tax credits from the state, and $27.5 million more from the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. Separately, Nissan, an A123 customers, got a $1.6 billion loan to retool a factory to make electric cars and batteries. The climate bill will provide another boost to electric cars.  (Read more about this here.).

So, if there is really an energy and pollution crisis that is the true engine behind 'going green' and inflating the climate change issue; there are very convenient benefactors.  Moreover, one peripheral and perplexing issue is the one raised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA):  There is some support for the idea that eating meat or what it takes to produce the meat that human omnivores consume is the cause of the bulk of climate change.  And yet, the former Vice President has no intention of giving up meat, of lobbying against its production for the purpose of consumption.  (Read more about this here.).

All Scientists Agree.  Right?

Finally, without being a scientist, one can say:  Science likes to call a phenomena or theory settled when it's predictive - that is, if there's Global Cooling...or Warming; it is good if the weather continues to cool...or warm.  So far, theories of Global cooling and warming are problematic, hence the name change, Climate Change - a description so subjective that evidence of it is manipulable or needless.

And though there is no scientist who can prove the existence of God (or the absence of God, for that matter), which provides an opportunity for one to call believers in God (or Evolution skeptics) ridiculous; there are scientists who can offer emprical refutations of Global Cooling or Global Warming.  (Read more about this here.).  Again:  This is explains the name change.  In the face of scientific disagreement over a phenomenon, how can the issue summarily be called closed with disdain and moral outrage acting as punishment to this crime?