[Pretzel Logic]

I violated my own rules and originally posted this OT rant in the Market Thread. As a result, I have given strong consideration to banning myself, but I've decided to merely issue myself a warning THIS time, since I occasionally make some nice contributions to the discussion.

For the record, my wife wanted me banned immediately with no second chances.

I realized when I posted this that my post below is only the beginning of a debate, not the end of one -- so I can't blame anyone for responding. There's much more to my viewpoint than the simple few facts than outlined here -- there are many additional supporting facts to be added, and I'm happy to address the issue further as I have time.

I researched this issue in depth for several years before solidifying my opinion on it, and approached it with the same dilligence with which I approach most everything (i.e.- I have several hundreds, if not thousands, of hours behind my viewpoint) -- but at this stage, I'll have to work to dig up my sources again (those bookmarks and scientific papers are long-gone on an old computer).

So... I've created this thread to continue the debate for those who wish to. If any community can take a polarizing issue like this and discuss it productively, it's ours. And I'm certainly always open to hearing the other side and any new evidence.

I stopped reading when I got to this sentence in the first paragraph:

"The steady depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, along with the accelerated pace of climate change, will... thrust us into a global depression."

There is no evidence to support "accelerated pace of climate change" -- in fact, the opposite is true. The presupposition is faulty; thus the conclusions are bound to be faulty.

In 2000, the UN's IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) predicted that by 2010, global temperatures would rise one degree. In reality, global temperatures declined during that time period, and are still falling. If the "man made global warming" theory worked, then the theory would have generated accurate scientific predictions; not predictions which were 180 degrees reversed from the outcome.

Other scientists accurately predicted the fall in temperature from 2000 to 2010, using science that was based on natural solar cycles and not based on the incorrect theories of man-made global warming. That alone should settle any debate, but it doesn't, because Global Warming is more of a religion than a science -- which is why I'm probably stepping on someone's cherished belief system with this post...

In the 70's, "global cooling" was the fear du jour, because the global temperature fell from the late 1940's until the late 1970's. There was a lot of fossil fuel burning going on in that time period... but global temperatures fell anyway, because burning fossil fuels has no appreciable causation to temperature.

Man-made climate change is one of the biggest fallacies currently being perpetuated on the global public, IMO. I don't wish to open THAT can of worms in the market thread, but I've done a ton of research on the subject and am wholly convinced that "climate change" is simply a natural ramification of living on a giant ball of rock which hurtles through space at 486,000 MPH (actually much faster, if you count galactic motion) and orbits an unfathomably huge and slightly unstable nuclear reactor (the sun) which goes through its own cycles.

The point is: the universe is a harsh place, and viewing climate as something that never changes is not in line with reality -- climates change occurs naturally and cyclically. The sun is the driving force behind earth's climate, not man-made atmospheric emissions.

The climate of earth changes over time, since solar activity changes over time; that's been well documented, and earth appears to cycle between periods of warming and ice ages. We are still in-between ice ages -- thank goodness, because that means food is plentiful.

In the past, it has sometimes been much hotter on earth; and it has sometimes been much colder. In fact, the island of Molokini (off the coast of Maui) has wave-erosion notches hundreds of feet beneath the current ocean surface level, left over from when sea level was much lower than it is today. The rise to current sea levels occurred long before we started burning fossil fuels. Why would anyone expect it to simply "Stop right there! Don't ever change again!"?

As far as anyone knows, the earth has the most moderate climate in the entire galaxy (which isn't saying much): most planets are subject to daily/nightly changes in the hundreds of degrees, and some planets regularly have storms with wind speeds in the thousands of miles per hour. To even expect that the earth should have some type of bizarre "never-changing" climate system in a universe this violent is simple silliness.

The whole theory is complete hubris in my mind, and many of the smartest scientists in the field -- at least those who aren't on the government payrolls (follow the money -- research which suggests "climate change" gets you awarded with Federal grants) -- agree.

Earth's climate changed long before we were here, and it will change long after we're gone. It's not going to stop changing now, just because we want it to -- whether we burn fossil fuels or not.

Man-made climate change is not a scientific issue; all the evidence refutes the whole theory. It is a political issue, and I think it has become a religion for many of its public followers.

Sorry for the OT rant, but I have researched both sides of the argument in depth over the course of several years... and it's something of a pet peeve. I don't like seeing the public misled about anything -- attempts to mislead the public, whether they come from "The Beard" or the UN, simply bother me.