Global warming? It all goes back to science.

The summer solstice will occur this year on June 21, 2009, at 1:45 am (EDT).

But missing from the "radar" of the global warmongers is the little-publicized fact that in the month of January, earth is precisely 3 million miles NEARER the sun as opposed to June. 

So why the disparity? Shouldn't January be the warmer of the two months?

Earth's distance from the sun-- at any given point during the year-- is irrelevant to what is actually responsible for the 4 seasons (not the 60's singing group), and why we have such large temperature variations between summer & winter. 

Once again, it all goes back to science: the earth leans slightly on its axis, like a spinning top-- suspended in an off-kilter position-- which directly affects the angle of the sun's rays upon earth's surface; and it's this precise angle that makes the difference.

This means that in January-- although earth is closer to the sun-- it is leaning the "wrong way," and our northern hemisphere receives only indirect sunlight.

So as the earth literally wobbles through its annual 365-day cycle; it leans an exact 23 degrees (and 26 minutes) off the central plane of its orbit.

And if we hark back to our 7th grade science books, we recall this planetary lean not only causes seasonal climatological variety, it determines why the days are either longer (or shorter) in each of the two respective hemispheres  

Indeed, it's the amount of direct sunlight that determines earth's temperatures.

But apparently, there is one "all-knowing" congressman who begs to differ:

Of course, it's our good friend Henry Waxman (D-Cal), who-- evidently having skipped seventh grade-- has written "climate change" legislation, requiring that by the year 2020, CO2 emissions be reduced 20 percent (from 2005 levels), and that  emissions of other "greenhouse gases" be reduced 80 percent by 2050.

Actually-- in a biblical sense-- Mr. Waxman appears to be giving mankind an offhand complement, implying that it is MAN who controls earth's temperature, and NOT the sun; and it's the irresponsible actions of we Americans who hold the fate of the world's climate within our energy-wasting hands.

But Waxman aside, it all goes back to almost 40 years ago:

Back in 1970, James Hansen (previously an unknown NASA scientist) released an earth-convulsing statement on climate change, proclaiming...(quote) "The world was warming, and greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels were the reason." 

Hansen ominously predicted that by the turn of the century (2000 AD) earth would undergo a  rise of 2.6 - 4.2 F* in temperature, melting ice sheets would threaten Manhattan Island, and worldwide sea levels would rise anywhere from 6"- 8"-- and possibly, even 12 inches.

However, it seems like Mr. Hansen was just a wee bit off the mark.

But despite his grievous miscalculation, Hansen, and his other chicken-little comrades from the UN international panel on climate change (IPCC), are at last poised to cash in:

The coming specter of climate change/cap 'n trade legislation stands to extract trillions out the world's economies by 2035, and will eliminate untold millions of energy-related jobs, as attempts to ban the internal combustion engine gain momentum, and wreak worldwide economic disruption for a solution to a problem that may not even exist.

But given the recent spate of cold weather in the Northern hemisphere, (and the reversal of the warming trend since 1998)  the IPCC has been chirping a different tune: Global warming has cleverly morphed into "climate change," and progressing to the even more ominous-sounding, "carbon-loading" of the atmosphere.

And the IPCC-- rather than apocalyptic predictions-- is now "giving odds"...50-50 probability earth's temperatures rise 2 degrees (Centigrade), and 20-80 probability of a rise by 3.5 C*...all by the end of the 21st century.

But so what? Even if earth does begin to heat up rapidly-- another 2, 3, even 4 degrees-- so what? What then?

Plant life would proliferate, as trees expand everywhere, happily going about their natural, atmospheric self-cleansing process, inhaling (and negating) an ever-expanding supply of CO2 by the world's continuing use of fossil fuels.

The decline in the world's rain forests would reverse its trend, and jungles would commence spreading in Brazil, Indonesia, and Africa.

The timberline would migrate to the north in North America-- all continents would thus benefit.

Previously, areas that were too cold would now sustain agriculture; ergo, earth's food supply would increase-- food prices would decrease-- and the all the world's economies would improve.

Residential homes and commercial buildings would require less heat, burn less fossil fuel, and earth's atmosphere would benefit from the reduction.

And what about the so-called threat from the oceans' rise-- supposedly the  main reason we must fear global warming-- what then?

Pre-emptive, high technology "sea defenses" could be constructed; mankind could shine with his ingenuity & ability to engineer solutions, such as sea walls, breakwaters, and even a system of dikes, which could serve as a breakthrough in designing foundations for seaside condos, which would spark the real estate and construction industries.

It's all about turning negatives into positives, and compelling these global warmongers to "go back to the drawing board," and try to fabricate yet another way to scam the world. 

And if these liberal doom 'n gloomers claim that mankind has the "power" to warm the earth, it begs the obvious question...why then would Man not be capable of counter-acting it?

Let's repeat: if global warming becomes reality-- so what?

It could bring about the discovery of new, revolutionary farming methods; improve air conditioning technologies; promote construction of de-salinization water-purification plants; and possibly, new improved home-construction methods to deal with the so-called increased intensity (and frequency) of hurricanes, thunderstorms, etc.

Mankind could use global warming as the most positive boost to the world's economy since James Watt's invention of the steam engine, which  precipitated the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

Global warming could harken the the dawn of a new era of re-industrialization, where the world responds pre-emptively in unison.

And rather than undergo the foolish economic upheaval of eliminating fossil fuels (and the internal combustion engine), the so-called onset of global warming could spark an "Apollo-type" mission to engineer an environmentally "clean" motor-- perhaps using some after-burner mechanism that would assure virtually zero emissions from the exhaust.

This would not only pre-empt the fear of global warming, it could provide a huge economic boost to employ thousands of new engineers (and support people) to get after the task at hand, rather than pursuing a solution to a problem that may never come to pass.

But rather than crafting solutions, the crafty global warmongers in Congress only see fit to create problems.

They are quite willing to sacrifice the economic security of  America, because climate change is yet another way to rape every American household out of every extra dollar for their own pockets-- yet another scam that is less about ecology, and more about solidifying their control in Washington for years to come . 

Estimates from the Heritage Foundation predict the Waxman Clean Air bill will increase energy prices, eliminate jobs, and reduce the country's GDP; but conceals the fact that as China and India increase emissions, it will only cancel out any benefits of a perceived healthier atmosphere-- the so-called purpose of the bill.

The Waxman bill- as it attempts to put a "cap on carbon"-- is nothing more than a guarantee that all heavy industries will pay to the point where they may no longer even exist by the time it expires in 2050; and upon its passage, by 2015, it would:

-raise electricity prices by 90%

-raise residential natural gas prices by 65%

-increase the amount of inflation-adjusted federal debt by 33%

-annually destroy 900,000 jobs-- gradually increasing to peak of 1.7 million jobs lost by 2020 

-raise each household's annual energy bill by $1500

-reduce aggregate gross GDP by $7.5 trillion by 2015, and only go upward from that point

Ironically, climatologists have calculated that by 2050, the law's impact on global temperatures will be a whopping two-tenths of a degree-- or perhaps NOTHING.

And how much cleaner would the world's air be? Unless we were to erect an atmospheric "bubble" over the northern hemisphere --as China and India progressively emit more CO2, (and the U.S. attempts to reduce emissions) -- it all eventually mixes in earth's upper atmosphere anyway.

But arguing with liberals is akin to herding cats. Why bother with the futility of factual scientific explanations? Why bother arguing that it's the SUN that controls earth's climate?

Why don’t we all just agree with 'em. Confound 'em! Throw an 800-ton monkey wrench into their scheme, and play along with their delusions.

We'll all just come to a common consensus that YES, fossil fuels contribute to climate change...but SO WHAT?

Global warming? Bring it on! If one were to look at the overall picture, it'll be the best thing that ever happened to the earth.

Everyone would welcome warmer winters.

Everyone would welcome more trees and plants-- the birds and animals would all become so much happier! The world's farming and lumber industries would flourish as never before.

As these leftist radicals increasingly attempt to coerce their foolish tyranny upon us, we must countermand with equally "foolish" arguments-- that actually make sense -- just to keep these greedy, power-hungry desperados at bay.