Earthers come to the conclusion that since we are of no greater importance than the rocks and the trees, the animals, birds and fish, no matter how much we may suffer, we must protect the planet, because the planet is their god, the state its minister. Like the old pagan sun worshippers of past centuries, Earthers worship the Earth and so place their belief in the Earth's greatness. They believe we must protect it, offer sacrifices to it, do nothing that may injure it, even at our own expense, peril, or ultimate financial demise. As was the sun to the illiterate pagans centuries ago, today's Earthers worship the planet as their god.

The Earther morality insists that man must be subservient to the welfare of the Earth, he must sacrifice for the Earth. In a way, it is kind of surprising they don’t suggest tossing conservatives into volcanoes in order to keep us all safe. This is the reason they refuse to acknowledge that global warming … - er now “climate change” is a financial hoax. To do so, might place their deity in danger. Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, they can't take even the smallest chance they just might be out of their collective minds. They are perfectly willing to forfeit man's financial welfare with forced climate policies and other sacrifices. Man is so unimportant in their grand scheme, particularly profitable and wealthy man, that it makes no difference what harm may come to him as a result of their dictates.

The Argument

We are destroying the planet. Brilliant scientists studying weather patterns of the last 170 years claim that our use of energy is damaging the planet. They offer "proof" by citing weather stations that show slight increases in average temperatures from time to time. They claim that this deadly warming trend will lead to a fatal ice age doomsday scenario, and already has led to unprecedented storms of great magnitude. We must stop this suicidal spiral by limiting the production of the pollutants that cause the problems.

Seems like 170 years of study ought to be long enough to know, right? Lets see.

By most scientific estimates, our planet is about 4.5 billion years old, not 170 years. So our data, what there is of it, is extremely limited when compared to the overall age of the Earth. The warmest year on record was 1934, which is almost exactly in the middle of our entire history of record-keeping. Interesting.

One hundred fifty years of study of a planet over 4.5 billion years old is equivalent to about a 2 1/2 hour window of information if we were 10,000 years old; or about 35 minutes if we began understanding and documenting climate at the birth of Christ.

Lets use a single year period to expose the ludicrous nature of these findings: If the earth were only a year old, and we had weather records comparable in length to those we actually do have, we would be studying records slightly longer than 1 second in duration.

Global warming scientists now come to definitive conclusions based on the equivalent of a single second in time relative to an entire year. They claim to know with certainty that our future holds only barren wastelands, and worldwide suffering based in this tiny sample of data. They want to dictate economic policy based on that leap of faith.

In any other area of study reasonable scientists might say that the time period used here is an insignificant sample, not large enough to arrive at any reliable conclusion. This data is used largely to cherry pick certain variables and report unsubstantiated conclusions and propagate intentional misinformation.

Remember, the hottest year on record was in the middle of the worst global financial depression in history (unless our current economic malaise surpasses it). Few wheels were turning; factories generating any smoke at all were largely closed. Global warming left-wingers use this data to attempt to limit production of everything from oil, gas, carbon emissions and anything else it seems that just may have the potential to earn risk takers some profit. Yet there was little current or accumulated pollutant production even in the documented hottest year on record. Why? Hadn't it accumulated enough yet? Maybe not.

The Sun is Irrelevant

We rarely hear "Climate Change scientists" describing in any detail the effects the sun or its solar eruptions and cycles has on the Earth. Its many hydrogen storms, magnetic tornados and its continually volatile power output surges are ignored. There is no doubt that the Earth went through very lengthy periods of both warming and cooling and warming again before the invention of the SUV. We all learned about previous ice ages and the subsequent warming in grade school. The Earth has been through many and varying periods of warming and cooling for over four billion years.

To suggest that the last time we went through an ice age of significant planetary disruption, capitalists were to blame for the spreading glaciers would be ridiculous, even for Earthers - yet now it will be the stated reason as scientific fact. The last glaciers reached as far as the equator, and then receded again. These periods last for tens of thousands of years and even longer - many times over. Over and over again.

They claim that global warming climate change on Earth is now caused by man's selfishness for profit at any environmental cost. We are irresponsibly, and irreversably polluting the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with that giant ball of fire in the sky with an asteroid scalding core temperature of about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

The sun's mass is over 99.8 % of our entire solar system. It consists of 70% hydrogen gas and 28% helium and exists in an often unpredictable state of chaos toying with tiny Earth's magnetic field, ozone layers and yes - of course the climate too. This means nothing to the Earthers. The continuous explosions, the spewing off of giant radioactive solar flares, are yet to be completely understood. Yet, this they claim has nothing to do with our warming or cooling, despite the fact we have experienced these climate changes countless of times in our history in the absence of any perceptible industrialized contribution.

Earthers claim it is man's fault that the Earth might be getting warmer and the ozone layer is depleting. Well, it seems the ozone is recovering again faster than they can explain. We were told that it was an emergency situation because we were emitting fluorocarbons into the atmosphere. Since this layer was discovered only in 1913, and it has been proven that volcanic eruptions as well as solar activity and our own weather affect it, a reasonable person would assume that it is affected far more by events out of man's control, than those caused by him. There is no record of its size increasing or shrinking even 1,000 years ago. Earther default position: blame man.

Apparently our affinity with big cars and greedy profits has also increased the temperature on Mars, because NASA researchers show our neighboring planet is warming at about the same rate as we are.

An infinitesimal time period in the grand scale relative to the age of the Earth is not proof. It is nonsense. We manufacture more products today and admittedly do pollute to some extent, but the Earth has been here a long time. The argument that the Earth's climate changes are primarily related man's irresponsibility is a very long and unfounded reach.

The sun is roughly 110 times the diameter of the Earth. If we were to design a solar system to scale, and the sun were a 28 inch diameter beach ball, the Earth would be the size of a one quarter inch pea orbiting around it about 200 feet away. Yet this star is able to provide to us so much power, light, heat, energy from that distance it can actually start flash fires on Earth. The ancient pagans were more rational worshipping the sun than their Earther counterparts are today. To virtually ignore the sun's awesome power and influence over our planet is intellectually dishonest at the very least.

This is not to suggest that man's contribution to pollution or to the warming of the Earth is completely non-existent. We don't deny that businesses will continue to pollute the water and air if they can get away with it when it is cheaper to do so. No one wants that, but to contend that our man-made contribution to any permanent alteration of climate here on earth it is anything more than insignificant is completely without merit.

Don't we have bigger storms now?

Seems like today whenever there is a big storm, someone cites man-made climate change as the cause, and another round of discussions for economic control begin. Earthers claim the debate is over, they have proven their point, so shut up and stop making money. Lets see if we had any major storms before the industrial era began.

We know that we started regularly recording specific weather data about 160 years ago, previously - nothing? Many kept some track of weather, but it was more historical chronicles than specific numerical weather statistics.

Historical weather records were sparse at best, but we do have evidence of specific storms that caused great havoc. Believe it or not, before Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy tore into the Northeast in 2012, there were many dangerous weather events before man started interfering with the delicate atmosphere. The following are just a few:

1900 - Great Galveston Hurricane

This is described as the fiercest storm ever to hit the United States. Hurricane winds reached 200 miles/hour (yes more than Katrina) a Category 5 storm. This hurricane produced a tide 25 feet high, killing approximately 8,000 people. This is the reason for that beautiful seawall surrounding the city. It is really something to see. If you ever get to Galveston, take a look at that wall.

1938 - Great Long Island/New England Hurricane

With inland winds recorded at 186 miles per hour, this storm crashed into the Northeast just before World War II. Reporters seemed to believe that Superstorm Sandy in 2012 was the first time anything devastating of a tropical nature ever bothered them. Oceanic waves were reported to be 30 feet high.

1888 - The Blizzards of 1888

The first storm came in on January12th and covered from North Dakota through Texas in a day and a half. Temperatures dropped to negative 52 degrees F - you know like those disaster movies in which we get flash freezing - not quite, but pretty severe and scary if you lived in the Dakotas in January 1888 and had to survive it. Tens of thousands of cattle were killed. The temperatures dropped so fast it was reported that over 200 people died because they were caught out in it after a very mild Sunday morning and froze to death before they could get home.

The second blizzard of 1888 hit on March 11th through the 14th and covered the Northeast again. This one killed about 400 people and dumped up to 50 inches of snow throughout the area.

1816 - Year without a summer

Maybe you've heard the expression "the year of eighteen hundred and froze to death". With record late snows into mid June in New England, and a very cold summer with frosts regularly occurring in July and August, this was the year many just never got to the beach. On July 4th, Savanah, Georgia's high temperature was only 46 degrees. Crop failures were widespread in New York and New England, but also in Western Europe and Canada. The cause of this is said to have been the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815. It spewed a cloud of ash into the atmosphere that blocked out the heat and light from the sun. Bummer.

Oh, and it wasn't a manufacturing plant in Akron, Ohio or a neglected engine light on a gas-guzzling pick-up truck that caused that Indonesian volcano to erupt.

1869 - The Saxby Gale

Another tropical hurricane of note hit the northeast; this time even farther north. It struck Maine and New Brunswick Canada. On October 4th it hit bringing destructive rains and winds setting rainfall records that still stand today.

1717 - The Great Snow

Four successive snowstorms fell between February 27 and March 7th, leaving four feet of cold white stuff across much of New England, with over five feet in New Hampshire and Maine.

1667 - The Dreadful Hurricane

This hurricane struck colonial Virginia in September 1667. It is said that about 10,000 homes were lost. This is a big number in any city today, but think about how many that was in the early days of Jamestown - just about all of them we're guessing here. Corn and tobacco crops were destroyed and cattle drowned. This storm is still considered to be one of the worst storms to ever hit Virginia. Rain fell for nearly two weeks in the aftermath, and the Lynhaven River near Virginal Beach was forever widened.

1559 - Loss of Pensacola

This one hurts me the most personally because it is the reason St. Augustine and not Pensacola, Florida is regarded as the country's oldest settlement.

Spanish conquistador Don Tristan de Luna landed in Pensacola on August 15, 1559 to establish a colony. A month later, September 19, a 24 hour hurricane blasted the area decimating it and destroying de Luna's fleet, and pretty much everything else. The survivors tried to carry on but were beaten down by famine because of the widespread destruction. They abandoned the settlement in 1561 only to surrender the glory of the first United States settlement to those wicked opportunists in St. Augustine, who chartered themselves in 1565. Due to the hurricane, it wasn't until 1698 that Pensacola was officially founded. That's a lot of time to allow for wind and rain to settle down. I guess it spooked them pretty good, and not an SUV in sight.

The above storms are just a small sample of the destructive forces the earth has dealt us over the years. We concentrate on our small little piece of land here in the United States - representing less than 5% of the surface area of the Earth, and on a still tiny sample of a few hundred years out of 4.5 billion. Europe has experienced similar weather anomalies, as has every other continent. Seems a little disingenuous for Earther's to believe that because we pollute some, are now industrialized, and living more comfortably in homes with electric power that severe weather now is man's fault.

Are they lying, or just wrong? They like to call us “climate change deniers” - well I call them “Solar Impact Deniers”.

The left argues that we conservatives won't even admit that the Earth is warming. They say that they have proof of these trends from their weather station data, and we had better listen to them and stop the nonsense about the sun or we will all choke to death in a cloud of ice-covered exhaust fumes, unless of course we freeze to death in an apocalyptic ice age first.

Well, it seems that they were not satisfied by merely purposely misrepresenting the magnitude and importance of the data, as if that isn't bad enough, they were also outright lying. They intentionally distorted and doctored the weather records from their own selected data recorders to support their biased conclusions:




"LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

The use of the word “trick” by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change."

Research director Phil Jones admitted the emails were genuine. In order to manipulate laws regarding pollutants, and mold society to their liking, the left outright lies about the evidence when it doesn't support their claims. The ends justify their means. So, not only do they deliberately misrepresent the magnitude of planetary climate change and its causes, ignore the many previous climate changes occurring before the industrial age even began, they intentionally and with considerable forethought, forge erroneously scientific weather data to advance their anti-capitalist agenda. Surprise, surprise.


No one wants to breathe contaminated air, drink polluted water, or eat tainted vegetables or meats, not even an evil conservative capitalist like me. Yet Earthers accuse us of promoting irresponsible manufacturing and agricultural methods that kill and injure plant and animal life. When they don't have the proof, they make it up.

Yet they claim it is we who lack social conscience; all we want is money, damn the destruction. No, we want reasonable controls to protect people that will allow us to profit; not unreasonable financially prohibitive regulations that only pretend to protect the Earth, but in reality only impede business and profitability and increase governmental control. We want simple rules that interfere with our personal or business activities only when it can be demonstratively proven that legitimate pollution directly injuring plants and animals is occurring.

We want man to be considered superior to other creatures. In any conflict between the good of man and the good of a lesser creature (yes - lesser) man must win. We can't let Earthers stop the drilling for needed oil because a rare moose decided to raise a family in the region, or a community of mice has taken up residency in the sand.

The Earther Religion

Earthers believe that we somehow spontaneously combusted as one might in a giant Darwinian lab because the Earth had the power to transform us from virtually nothing into what we are today. Somehow through specific random events all happening at precisely the right moment in time and in the correct sequential order, under unexplainable yet perfect conditions we developed from a lonely amino acid into intelligent beings - well some of us did . The Earth did this for us, and so it is revered as their god. Over billions of years and from a tiny random glob of nauseating micro liquid, we morphed into thinking, reasoning, often annoying enormously complex systems of nerves, muscles, cartilage, water, and sometimes brains.

This sounds more like the re-animation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's terminator nemesis, - you know when the destroyed liquid remains of his enemy miraculously collected itself and reformed into the body of the killer humanoid machine, but again I seem to be running off topic.

It doesn't matter how we came to be when we rely on coherent human reason. The Earthers scoff at the belief in intelligent design, creationist theory, as though we are of lesser intellect for believing in God. They admit that those ancient pagans worshipping the sun were irrational and uneducated, yet they believe the Earth somehow had the power to create all of this after some kind of unintended and random galactic combustion somewhere in the universe - the catalyst of which is left completely unexplained.

I suppose it is just a matter of which improvable irrational miracle you choose to believe, because God can't be proven either. It doesn't matter which, as long as one respects the supremacy of man, which Earthers do not.

The single species that Earthers are unwilling to protect at any cost, are human beings. We must not interfere with other species enjoyment of life, they must not be harmed in any way. Humans? No, we must yield to the more important creatures of the Earth.

It may seem that we deviate into religion here; that is not the intent. Because of the logic of our political beliefs, we don't have to argue whether or not we believe in God, or how we happened to get here. It doesn't matter whether you believe that man started out a disgusting glob of unidentifiable goo or that he was put here in tact and purposely by a higher power thousands, millions or billions of years ago. It doesn't matter if it were some combination of both intelligent design and evolutionary mutations. Here we are; how is irrelevant.

What is significant is the desire of each group to force compliance to their morality through their selected imposition of man-made laws. This can't be tolerated by any of us.

Many "God-fearing" conservatives would like to require regulations to support their morality. There are equally stubborn elitist Earthers who require just as strongly that they don't, but instead that their views about the Earth be legally imposed. They have their own morality and religion based on Earth worship that they attempt to compel the rest of us to respect, yet they claim to be non-religious. Based on this irrational logic, they assume moral and intellectual superiority.

Earthers control our educational system. They teach their religion to our children and of course the children believe it because educators do not encourage inquiry, but mental absorption. The Socratic Method of teaching, based on the active debate and questioning of ideas in order to stimulate critical thinking is not found in too many public institutions today. They do not want to encourage critical thinkers, they prefer quasi-educated lemmings. A conservative college student is now often afraid to disagree with a liberal professor in fear he won’t receive a fair grade for his efforts. So, in order to become educated he regurgitates what the professor demands.

“An educated man is a one who has been taught what others want him to believe to be true. A smart man is one who questions and verifies what he is taught.”

After our college students are taught by Earthers, the new breed then goes out and determines what it is the rest of us should do to protect the planet. They believe they are entitled to this power due to their advanced education, the validity of which they never bothered to verify. The result is regulatory complications that cripple our economy.

Had the Earthers been in charge 200 years ago, we never would have been able to settle the west. An environmental impact statement would have had to be prepared in order to build the Mississippi Bridge. It would never have been built. Locomotive engines gave off an awful lot of smoke, there is no way they would have been allowed to traverse the entire country. Even the automobile would not have been possible. What would happen to all of the horses and livery stable owners, not to mention the pollution created by those nasty horseless carriages?

This was also about the time the original Rockefeller, William Avery Rockefeller, Sr., father of robber baron John D. was also an oil tycoon, in a way. He was selling an oil as a medical remedy for “anything that ails ya”. That’s right, he was a traveling “snake oil salesman”. He claimed he could cure just about anything with his elixirs. Anyway, his heirs would never have been able to build that huge oil empire because they would have not been allowed to take that filthy oil out of the ground in the first place. I guess it is OK for horses to crap all over the place, but don’t let that car exhaust pollute the air.

Earthers now stop our own oil drilling ventures everywhere in the country. To them it is better for the planet for us to be forced to pay much more for it from third work countries who hate us and who don’t care at all about saving this rock rather than retrieving our own oil relatively safely and cleanly right here. After all, something just might go wrong, and of course solar power is cleaner. It doesn’t matter that alternative fuels don’t work well enough yet, it is cleaner and so we must abide by dictates of the educated but irrational leaders.

Squiggly Lights (Compact Fluorescent Lighting)

Ever try to read by one of those curly light bulbs? Earthers have lobbied for and pushed through legislation that made it illegal to buy any incandescent (ordinary) light bulbs after the year 2012, but delayed until 2014. Why? They claim the squiggly bulbs use less energy, so therefore are better for our planet. They were able to convince our incompetent congressmen and women to pass this lunacy for our planetary safety.

I bought some of these bulbs when they first came out because they were reported to last much longer and use far less electricity. I didn’t buy them because I was trying to be more green, I thought they would save me some money. They didn’t. I discovered not only couldn’t I see nearly as well with them, but they burned out just about as fast as the old ones. They didn’t last long enough for me to get a chance to find out how much they may have saved on my electric bill.

Without having a degree in engineering, I am guessing that my lights are the least of my power usage. I have a refrigerator and freezer, central air conditioning, electric water heating, televisions, computers, fans in every room, and some lights. How much of my bill is applicable to lighting? Maybe 15%? How much of that might I save if I agree to use the CFL lights and accept that I will not be able to see very much? They claim to save 50 - 75% of the energy of ordinary bulbs, let’s go with that.

Let’s assume the average electric bill is $150 per month. Yours would be more or less. 15% (the amount attributed to lighting) is $22.50. Assume further you save half of that by installing CFL lights throughout your house.

You might save $11.25 / month on an electric bill using CFL bulbs.

There’s more. If you need 50 light bulbs, they cost $150 - $200 – so it takes over a year to recover your initial cost.

How long will each bulb last? Three years maybe? So every three years I spend about $200 on light bulbs that have mercury in them. It seems that they might actually save a little money – but at what sacrifice to lifestyle?

CFL bulbs are dangerous if you break one. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has warned of the danger and so has produced a detailed instruction manual for cleaning up a broken CFL bulb.

Instead of citing the excruciatingly tedious boring and scary instructions of how to handle a broken CFL bulb, lets just say you don't throw them in the trash like the others. Check the United States Environmental Protection website for the clean-up instructions to avoid exposure to mercury.

Perhaps you should consider calling a hazmat team if you break a bulb, after all they are more qualified to understand the dangers and the safe disposal methods a little better.

It is beyond reason that they are now mandated, and we will have to use them in our homes because, well, liberals like them.

Maybe they manufacture them a little better now, and possibly they could be proven to be more efficient over time if they last long enough. But I have to ask this: Even if they can be proven to be more efficient, if I can’t read by them what good are they? Living in darkness also leads to less energy consumption. Do I really want to live in fear of breaking one of these bulbs? What manufacturing process is used to make these bulbs? Does it take more energy to make them? Is it hazardous because of the mercury? How could it not be?

Couldn’t we save even more money by leaving my lights off or using wax candles? What manufacturing process is used to make these bulbs? Does it take more energy to make them? Here's guessing it does. Not all the math has been done here.

Earthers want to use them, so they managed to mandate that all of us do too. They have pushed through the law disallowing the manufacture and the sale of incandescent light bulbs based on inefficiency in favor of the dangerous, mercury laden squiggly CFL bulbs.

So lets save the planet. If a few humans must be sacrificed to mercury poisoning in the process, so be it. After all, humans are not a protected species.

No - I don’t think so. Maybe we should find out who profits most from the sale of these CFL light bulbs? Things haven’t changed all that much from the days of the Robber Barons – and they need to.

There are about 1,000 of the now ordinary incandescent light bulbs that I bought for less than 20 cents each in various places in my houses. I have them in my attic, in my closets, sheds and garages and I don’t intend to ever buy a CFL bulb – ever.

Regardless of whether we believe we were created by the Earth or by God, morality and religion have no place in the crafting of our nation's laws. Saving the earth from incandescent lighting is just one of the ways Earthers want to micro-manage our lives.

We must stick to enforcing laws against men, not against God or the Earth. God laws tend to be morality based but so do Earther laws. One restricts man based on another's idea of disrespecting other men and God, the other restricts us based on disrespecting the planet. We must re-define crime without this irrational mental interference.

Had Earthers been around hundreds (and thousand) or years ago when earlier deadly hurricanes, tornados, droughts, famines, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes ruined our weekends they would have explained it easily: "We never before have seen such violent storms. What is different from which man is profiting, that is adversely affecting the Earth? Shipping, exploring, freedom to travel without the TSA. It must be those gigantic sails on the vessels playing havoc with the Earth's natural wind patterns resulting in devastating weather. Stop sailing those big ships and start rowing again."

Next: It's not really the thought that counts