Global Warming in the Perspective of Recent History

I am a strong supporter of science, as an intellectual method of study. At the same time, personal experience has taught me to be more than a little bit skeptical about science when it is taught as a body of absolute "facts," particularly when the same facts are the basis for generating grant and research money.

I find it fascinating that 50 years ago, the scientific and academic communities were positive that nothing could ever escape the earth’s atmosphere. It remained scientifically impossible right up to the time Sputnik started beeping tauntingly at us from space. I recall being told to skip the reading of chapter 13 in my high school physics book, because updates, deleting the prior scientific "facts," hadn’t been purchased by the School District yet. I guess Soviet scientists didn’t have the advantage of enlightenment and all of the scientific facts and American research when they started their space program.

40 years ago, a scientific consensus had been reached, and tons of private and public research money proved, mankind had less than 20 years before we all starved to death as the result of global overpopulating. We didn’t. In fact we’re about double that population now. Starvation today is more about economics and political power-struggles by African warlords than food production or global population.

About 35 years ago, lots of research dollars had proven that DDT and acid rain had already poisoned all of our ground water and most of our land and food supply. Fish, forests, plants and all wildlife were collectively marching toward a certain death cause by mankind's wanton disregard for scientific facts about DDT and power-plant emissions. We had to act quickly; our salvation depended upon the immediate shut down and replace all coal burning power-plants and put a ban of DDT before it was too late!!! They didn't, we didn’t and we aren’t...mainly because most college protesters liked Jane Fonda in the China Syndrome, and decided that they collectively hated nuclear power-plants even more coal-fired plants. A few minor chemical changes and "safer pesticides" --amazingly similar to DDT, albeit less effective, saved us.

30 years ago when I was in college, after a lot of government and grant research, climatologists, scientist and the academia were again all united in the FACT, not theory--FACT, that the world was irreversibly headed into another ice age before the end of the century. More studies were needed to be funded or all human civilization would freeze. The few remaining humans would revert to a stone-age technology. Gosh, it was almost as largely hyped as the global warming is today.

Next, who could forget the late 1980's, when scientists advised us of the catastrophic depletion of the earth’s ozone layer? Death and destruction by radiation awaited all of us within a few short years. How did this happen? Why man-made Freon, of course! All knowledgeable scientists were certain; NASA polar pictures proved it! It was undisputable! Some minority of scientists asserted that observed changes in the ozone layer might be following a natural cycle–these heretics were reasonably shouted down because, it was imperative to "do something now–before it’s too late!!!" The hoopla was so grand, Congress pass laws that to this day ban the production, importation and sale of Freon in the US.

Funny, nobody seemed to have any intelligent answers to a few of the simplest questions: As Freon is almost three times heavier than air, how did it "float" miles into the atmosphere to deplete the ozone layer at the poles? If Freon causes ozone depletion, how come most the smog in our cities is made up of ozone–you’d have thought that all the leaking Freon from cars, air conditioners and refrigerators would have at least made a minor dent in our earth-bound band of ozone–why didn’t it? If Freon caused ozone depletion, how in the heck did the ozone layer "heal itself" even before the new legislative bans went fully into effect?

In the mid-1990's pysdo-scientists, such as Ted Danson, along with Green-Peace, Jacques Cousteau, and a few other luminaries, proved irrefutably that the world’s ocean’s would be dead and barren within ten years. We had to ban fishing, pollution and the Republican party or the human race would become extinct in our life time. Lots of scientific studies and research papers "proved it" beyond the need for any questioning.

Today, if its unseasonably cold–the fault is global warming. If it’s unseasonably warm–the fault is global warming. If hurricanes increase in numbers or severity–its due to global warming. If they decrease in number or severity–again, it’s due to global warming. If your cat has a hair-ball, Al Gore will tell you on the internet he invented that it’s a direct result of conditions arising from global warming. All the intelligent scientists are unshakable in their belief of human-caused global warming–and the need for a little more public research money.

Facts like . . . the world’s oceans appear to give off significantly more carbon-dioxide in any given year than mankind has generated in the last 30 years is pushed off; "Well, can’t do much about that, but we can reduce fossil-fuel usage!!" Volcanoes also are full of greenhouse gases, again more than man can possibly create in a concentrated effort; so how come too many volcanoes erupting and spewing unimaginable clouds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere...is a recognized cause of global cooling and ice-ages? "Are you an idiot?" our scientists say, "We’ve GOT to outlaw wood-burning stoves or we’re all doomed in just a few short years! With a small grant and a new computer model, the scientific community says that they can prove it!"

Man was acknowledged recently, as only the 10th largest contributor to the generation of greenhouse gases, almost unnoticeable compared to natural sources. Doesn’t this still beg the larger issue? If the amount of man-made greenhouse gases isn’t measurable compared to naturally occurring sources–and if our contribution to the "problem" doesn’t really statically matter, aren’t we all doomed irrespect to how sincere we are this is our fault?

I say, throw some grant money at it and have a telethon. Pass new laws and outlaw lawn-mowers. If we all believe that climate change is our fault, and we show we’re sincere in our guilt...heck, mother nature will forgive us. It worked for over-population, DDT, acid-rain, nuclear power-plants, global cooling, ozone depletion and the ocean’s sterilization--why shouldn’t it work for global warming too?

An Immigration alternative

With the recent arrest and deportation of Elvira Arellano, the discussion has once more been engaged with regard to federal immigration policies. One key issue, illustrated by Ms. Arellano’s story, is the difference between "immigrants:" those seeking to immigrate to the US and become citizens; and, "economic refugees:" those coming to the US for economic reasons related to profitable employ or socio-economic benefits that are wholly unrelated to any desire to become a citizen of this country.

A convenience to confuse the issue, used by open boarder advocates, is lumping together all foreign nationals: foreign students, migrant workers, technical guest workers, those sincerely attempting to immigrate and integrate as US citizens, and self-acknowledged economic opportunists (such as Ms. Arellano), --and proceed to use a straw-man approach to argue against any kind of control of our national boarders.

Ms. Arellano, came to illegally to the US as an unskilled laborer. She was convicted of identity theft, which is a felony in most states. She was then deported and again illegally re-entered the US, which is a federal felony offense. She was convicted for both and was ordered to again be deported. Her stated reason for coming to the US, and again returning after her initial deportation, was for the available social-welfare benefits offered here that were unavailable to her in Mexico. Prior to execution of the deportation order, she sought and obtained "sanctuary" at the Adalberto United Methodist Church of Chicago.

This brings up a very interesting issue hypocrisy.

Many communities are concerned about the growing number of illegal aliens, and would like to stem the tide. Some liberal politicians, along with self-styled "civil-rights" advocates, have set up "sanctuaries" and "sancturay-cities," enacting state and local policies designed to preclude local law enforcement from working with the Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Many liberals, engaged in defeating the enforcement of US immigration laws, see their activities as a "cause celebrity" form of civil-disobedience, romantically envisioning themselves as part of a 21st century "under-ground rail-road" -- just as long as the last stop on the rail-road isn't in their own neighborhoods (except of course as inexpensive lawn service, nannies, day-labors, maids & pool-boys).

I advocate a compromise solution. . .

Cities and states not wanting to deal with the cost and problems of illegal immigration simply give non-violent "undocumented workers" a choice: 1) a one-way bus ticket to the "sanctuary city" of their choice; or, 2) immediate criminal/civil prosecution and deportation.

Simply become a way-station facilitating safe-passage to the "illegal alien safety zones" our liberal politicians have openly established.

I’ve been told this idea is prohibited by law—but hypocritically, the objections always come from liberals that aren’t at all bothered by other violations of our immigration laws; they tacitly condone identity fraud, and other "petty crimes" related to "undocumented immigration." I don’t see how "pro-immigrant" politicians and activists have a logical or moral basis to complain about other communities not respecting immigration laws governing transportation of illegals to the very cities set-up to circumvent US laws for deporting these individuals.

Either immigration laws need to be universally respected --or they don’t. We are a nation of laws, or we aren’t.

I don't see why conservatives continue to permit liberals to demand certain laws be enforced while, at the same time, allow them to openly abet the violation of other laws not to their liking –-and without consequence. Those cities that don’t help deport illegals, have no basis for complaint against a community helping illegals get to their city intent on frustrating immigration enforcement.

I think its about time we let the politicians & activists advocating open boarders deal with a larger portion of the cost, crime and infrastructure headaches they have attempted to shift over to the rest of us–-we should no longer permit them to have it both ways.