A Heated Debate

It was June 25th, 1952, and we were discussing that night’s upcoming World’s Light Heavyweight Title fight between Middleweight champ Sugar Ray Robinson, the challenger, and the Light Heavyweight title holder, Joey Maxim. At the moment, we were sitting in an excavated cellar at a construction site, taking a break from the excessive heat of the day. It was refreshingly cool leaning against the concrete walls of that unfinished building, and it was a coolness that Sugar Ray would not feel during that night’s fight.

The temperature in the ring that night was somewhere around 115 degrees, and it brought about the collapse of Sugar Ray, Referee Ruby Goldstein – who had to be replaced after being stricken in mid-fight – and several dozen spectators as well. All were carried from the premises on stretchers. Sugar Ray had lost 12 pounds in that torrid heat and his body was covered with blisters. Joe Louis visited the dressing room after the fight and stated that he thought Sugar Ray was dead.

We were somewhat more fortunate when we were forced into the shade of that unfinished cellar. It was only 105 degrees down there.

So here we are in mid-July, sixty years later, and we haven’t even turned on the air conditioning units in our office yet. If there was a shred of truth in this “global warming” and this “climate change” nonsense, shouldn’t we be roasting by this time?

So what’s this “global warming” hoax all about anyway? It was ‘way hotter fifty or sixty years ago. The world’s unchallenged climate authorities have been attempting to bring out this truth but have been ignored by those who control the mainstream media.

As an example, early this past April we read a report in The Daily Caller (TheDC) entitled “Former astronauts blast NASA for ‘extreme position’ on climate change”. Needless to say, none of the major newspapers or TV channels covered the report. Here’s some of it:

“Nearly 50 former NASA scientists, astronauts and technologists are chastising NASA for is position on man-made climate change. In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, the group of 49 former employees ask NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to ‘refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites’ because ‘it is clear that the science is NOT settled.’

“‘As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,’ the letter reads.

“The group said that the statements that ‘man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.’

“‘The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific date prior to making decisions or public statements.’ the letter reads. The group, according to a news release, includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston …

“‘Our concerns are about the reputation for NASA,’ former Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham told TheDC in an interview. ‘Not many of us are really all that pleased with what’s been happening to NASA.’ Cunningham explained that the co-signers came together through the NASA Alumni League’s Johnson Space Center Chapter in Houston.

“Leighton Steward, a geologist who is chairman of Plants Need CO2, told TheDC that he helped ‘catalyze’ the effort to draft the letter after being invited a year ago to speak with a group of retired NASA scientists in Texas about climate change. He said, ‘Hey you guys are high-profile, well-thought-of guys. If you’re this concerned about what NASA is saying, you ought to let them now about it.’

“Steward said the group is just a loose coalition of former NASA employees who agree on the topic and said they aren’t being funded by anybody. ‘They don’t have a penny,’ Steward said with a laugh.” –

The following statement was released back on February 27, 1992 by the Science & Environmental Policy Project. It also had been ignored by the controlled press because Americans need to be kept in the dark – they need to be fooled. Not to worry, though – they wouldn’t have read the release anyway. We included the letter in our Vol. XXVII, Art. 34 commentary for our readers, though. Here’s the body of the letter:

“As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental and activist groups and certain political leaders. The so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.

“Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.

“A survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.

“Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.

“Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.

“We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.”-

The 46 signatories to this letter were included in our Vol. XXVII, Art. 34 commentary, so we won’t reprint them here. If you can find the time, read that commentary again and check out the qualifications of a few of the those scientists. There isn’t a phony among them.

Now take another look at the shenanigans contrived by the global warming crowd in that fiasco known as “Climategate”. Y’know, like in “Watergate”. The “Climategate” scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the United Kingdom, revealing scientific fraud and manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

The released information provided evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret and hidden from the public until the CRU data was leaked. The CRU’s obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed that this biggest scientific hoax in world history is also the worst scandal of this generation. The evidence revealed the truth about man-made “global warming”: it’s a fraud.

Shameful. But the ignorant public still isn’t paying attention. And that’s even more shameful.

Three months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of “global warming”, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com, in which he acknowledged he was wrong about climate change. Unlike many environmentalists who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his retirement at age 92, was a much-honored working scientist and academic. After observing that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based models predicted, Lovelock admitted, the problem is no one knows what the climate is doing. What is clear, he says, is that doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

Be honest. Did you read about the NASA letter in the media? Or the letter of protest sent by those 46 independent scientists? Or about “Climategate? Or about James Lovelock? Of course not.

Or have you ever seen anything in the media about our job-creating patented systems? Again, no. Anything that fails to fatten the wallets of the favored few we’ve elected will never be shown to John and Jane Doe. “Cap-n’-trade” – “green this and green that”- that’s where the real money is. Only graft and bribes will influence the media and our elected reps. So if that kind of “donation” is not part of the correspondence you’ve sent – you can expect an “opened but not read” response.