Click HERE for great hotel discounts

Popular decisions often
are the incorrect ones

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

I have an idea. Let’s take a vote on global warming. Then we will know what to do.

I am only joking. I want to commend A.M. Costa Rica for having the courage to publish the voice of decent. Popularity has often been known for making the wrong decisions. Witness the popular election of Adolf Hitler as the leader of Germany before World War II. Time Magazine even named him Man of the Year just before the war.

Cycles of global warming are a historically known fact. Witness the explosion of population of the Vikings during one of these warming periods that probably started because of their ability to produce more food. Most people don’t know that rulers of England are a descendent of those Vikings through William the Conqueror. They colonized Greenland, which is currently a frozen waste. And people are saying we are in a period of global warming?

Individuals have usually made great scientific discoveries. They have usually done so by observing more closely what was really happening and often had little support from their fellow scientists.

I cannot help but think that some universities are padding their payrolls with research grants to keep the rest of the scientists employed.

Global warming is a hoax
fostered by Godless liberals

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Is William Gray a lone voice, or does it just seem that way because of one-sided reporting? GOD!  Open your ears everybody. Iraq is a war. Dangerous man-made climate change is a hoax. 

Mr. Pillsbury Dough Gore is, and has always been, a buffoon. Striking a vein of stupidity equal to his own, Gore has stumbled upon a classic winning liberal issue for the masses, one that preys upon the weakness in people. Since weakness breeds insecurity, it makes people very susceptible to the cry, “The sky is falling!”  

Liberal leaders, generally Godless Intellectuals, understand that the Sun drives climate change, and variations within that change are caused by solar activity, but that’s too complicated and doesn’t sound threatening. So, since sheep must be herded in the direction of a Liberal Camelot, this hoax becomes creative misdirection for the greater good of mankind.  Boy, that puts a warm spot in your tummy just saying it.

Older climate experts, and I bet there are many more, have stated that life threatening climate change caused by man is a hoax.  It’s the younger, activist, scientists who subscribe to the creative misdirection.  Don’t tell me these “scientists” aren’t politically motivated.  Leftist university “professors” have led the way for years.

Scientist Gray just lacks
credibility on climate change

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Every scientific discipline has a heretic or two rustling the bushes, and Mr. Gray seems to fit the mold of this species.  His exceptions to the causes of global climatic changes  comes with little or no documentation and no credibility.  All we have are his denials and an admission that he has been marginalized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That perhaps, IS telling?
 
“The IPCC and all these reports, I have been over 55 years working in the field and they never have come to me one time,” he said.  “I have just been isolated, and I know other colleagues of mine, who I respect for their knowledge. They never consulted them either. If they know how you think, they just leave you alone and go on.”
 
The foregoing quote by Mr. Gray, together with his poor syntax renders his thoughts barely understandable.  Perhaps, that is why  "the IPCC just leaves Mr. Gray alone?”   

However, we want to be fair and therefore will not dwell much on such trivialities.  Mr. Gray thinks it is time for a debate on the issue of “global warming”?!!?   Where has the good scientist been these past 10 or 15 years?  Apparently he is utterly unaware the "debate" has been over for quite some time, or that computer modeling and all manner of statistical documentation together with powerful circumstantial evidence has led to a worldwide scientific consensus?
 
Either Mr. Gray chooses to ignore the extensive studies and resulting data, or there are other issues which might be influencing his judgment? Again, in the interest of fairness, we shall not speculate on what they could be.  

Mr. Grays’ forthcoming book might make interesting reading, or even $$$$$, however, I for one will not buy it.

Finally, what troubles me most is his prioritized categorization of our planetary woes.  He lists almost everything except methane and carbon dioxide producing cows. Seriously, although cattle are a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions, there is only ONE problem from which every socio/economic, and political problem is born.   O-V-E-R-P-O-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N.
 
Let me repeat, OVERPOPULATION.  Understanding this fact does not require expertise in differential calculus or astrophysics.   If a man has two or three children, an average sized passenger car will suffice.  If he continues to increase his family, he’ll be obliged to buy a van, a bus, or something else suitable for transport.  He’ll also require a larger home!  His growing family will now see a rippling effect in household expenses, food, clothing, housing, petrol, medical care, etc., etc. 

Simultaneously, this growing family will also increase their output of pollution.  EVERY SINGLE item we purchase comes from Mother Earth.  The more we consume, the more which needs to be produced.  This puts more and more demands upon Mother Natures’ ability to replace what we use and take away.  EVERYTHING has a finite limit, and the Earth is no exception.  The planet is now entering a crossroad of enormous significance.
 
We are reaching the limits of what we, as humans can take and consume from the earth  The abundance is gone, too many humans and their demands have created a crisis which may soon end life as we now know it. Each year hundreds of animal species become extinct.  No insect has ever been known to become extinct.  Ants, termites and bacterium comprise the bulk of living bio mass.  They, together with other species of insects may well be the only survivors if human numbers are not reduced to sustainable levels.

Gray betrays objectivity
when he sides with Bush

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Mr. William Gray of Colorado State University completely betrays his scientific objectivity when he parrots the Bush/Cheney/corporate sector buzz phrase that reducing carbon dioxide emissions “will harm the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations.” How does he know what kind of financial harm will come? Is he an economist? Where’s the irrefutable data to back up his assertion?
   
The purpose of propoganda-speak like this is to deflect attention from the real agenda, that being the financial impact that the reduction of the use of fossil fuels, the implementation of carbon dioxide scrubbers and other environmentally friendly upgrades would have on the billionaire owners of the polluting industries who don’t want to invest capital in their aging, dirty infrastructure. And of course being elitists and narcissists, they see their financial interests as being congruent with the best interests of everyone on the planet. 

This is just plain sick, and emblematic of a mind set left over from the “robber baron” mentality of the 1920s when the Rockefellers, DuPonts and Morgans could and would do anything they pleased to rake in the cash no matter who was harmed by their actions.

What economic effect would Mr. Gray postulate if he considered the cumulative impact of less breathable air, worldwide shortages of drinkable water and soil that’s too polluted to grow crops? Oh! I forgot! He only does hurricanes.

The fat cats of Corporate America have for generations escaped the financial and moral responsibility any patriotic Americans would and should accept for the damage that’s been done to the environment while they turn their millions into billions. But they’ll fight and kick and scratch to the bitter end to avoid doing so. And of course they’ll trot out their scientific “experts” to cast doubt on the growing mountain of evidence supporting the validity of the global warming hypothesis.

They’ll argue to the bitter end that the evidence for global warming is “inconclusive” or “contradictory” or “inaccurately extrapolated.” Welcome to Planet Earth. Mother Nature is like that. The scientific community lacks the sophistication to do long-term environmental projections with absolute certainty, which is what these corporate mouthpieces are demanding before they’ll admit that we may have turned an environmental corner that may lead to catastrophic results. And so the scientific community advises urgent, preventative action to avoid a global disaster.

SHAME on them! They MUST be politically motivated!
     

Display   Classified

By the A.M. Costa Rica wire services

By the A.M. Costa Rica wire services

By the A.M. Costa Rica wire services