Submitted by climatescam.com, Nov 9, 2007 11:55

Open letter to the global warming true believers.

There are many good reasons to conserve energy. Nearly every light bulb in my home has been changed to the new fluorescent ones. Unlike Al Gore and many Hollywood elitists, the house I live in is relatively small and is not a huge energy consumer. I drove a vehicle that has 250,000 miles on it until it threw a piston rod. The reason for this is that I believe in conservation for its own sake. I grew up during a time when hand-me-downs were common and being wasteful was a sin. Why be wasteful anyway?

So much of our oil is supplied by countries that hate and wish to destroy America. These range from the left wing government of Hugo Chavez to the fundamentalist Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Every dollar we spend importing oil is added to the resources of these people which they use to try to hurt America. New energy sources and conservation are in the national security interest of all patriotic Americans.

However, it is not hard to see that some of those who have attempted to perpetrate this myth about man-made global warming are more interested in climate change as a way of increasing the power of government over all of our lives instead of implementing a sensible energy policy. Some on the left believe in a government command and control economy and are willing to use global warming as a way to accomplish this. They also wish for higher taxes on carbon dioxide emissions. This is a clear indication of their wish to avoid conserving. They can afford a higher tax and keep on with their wasteful ways. Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee used 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American home. However, if the taxes are implemented, the average person would have to cut back on their energy use or have to install expensive alternatives to keep up their standard of living.

Another related example of this is NYC Mayor Bloomberg's traffic congestion plan. The mayor wants to tax cars that enter parts of Manhattan. This would enable only those who could afford the tax the "privilege" of congesting those areas of the city with their cars. He would accomplish his goal of raising money and making the selected areas less congested by making this privilege available to the rich.

Others seem to be motivated by ideas about a mystical and mythical past where people supposedly lived in harmony with nature. Ask anyone who has really lived in nature without modern medicine and insect repellent about the benovolence of the natural world.

Still others, perhaps many in the entertainment community, live extremely materialistic and pampered lives and wish to add a new dimension of meaning. They have chosen this cause because it fulfills a need to be doing something that they consider in the best interests of humanity. Have they really investigated this particular cause and read the literature so that they can answer questions about what they believe? I have noticed that from Laurie David on down they do not seem to wish to debate their ideas. Many use phrases like"the debate is over." Columnists have even compared global warming dissenters to Holocaust deniers. after all, the IPCC states that it is 90% sure of their conslusions. Do they use that 90% figure when the confront deniers?

There are many scientists who dispute man-made global warming and a quick search using these terms will reveal who they are.

Like Al Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and Leonardo DiCaprio, I am not a credentialed scientist. The mission of the website is to bring the other side of the debate, which should not be over, to the public. There is an advanced organizer at the top so that a fuller understanding of the issues about climate change and global warming are presented in an organized way. Please look at the other web sites that have articles and papers by credentialed scientists, that are listed on this site. Check the video page also.

Nat Trayger Ed.D (Doctor of Education, Curriculum and Instruction

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.