It's all so very interesting: If  we were to believe the mainstream media news being broadcast these days, we would be led  to think that America was mired with two daunting problems -1) the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression (false);  2)President-Elect Obama’s energy policies will address our severely deepening climate change crisis (false again).

But actually, premise #2 (Obama's energy policies) may actually trigger # 1 (a Second Depression), and bring the greatest financial crisis since 1933 to a head, if we continue the pied piper march off the precipice (i.e. the "consequences" of global warming).  We may actually be moving in a direction to third world energy dependency (all OPEC), whereby America may never recover its glory days of the past.

And just what type of climatic consequences are we facing ? In a previously hidden San Francisco Chronicle television interview, Obama was revealed saying that he wants to implement..."an aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies".  He further stated..."energy prices would skyrocket as a result". So if Obama's out to bankrupt coal companies, how will that affect electric and utility bills in another few years? 

And Obama believes that global warming is a critical issue, and besides cap & trade, he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. But why is this all so critical to do NOW? Is the environment really on the precipice? Or is it because Mr. Obama knows that scaring people to death is very good for the environmentalist business?

And Obama isnt the only one employing political scare tactics.The U.N. Climate Panel (panel of disinformation) claims human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are blanketing the planet., and the resulting increasing temperatures will bring more floods, heatwaves, more powerful storms and rising sea levels; so RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! 

But ironically, the United Nations first chairman of the climate panel, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that..."unless we ANNOUNCE disasters, no one will listen". And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the matter: the U.N., Obama, Sierra Club, and all the other radical environmentalists have foisted upon us a huge mythological, so-called problem that doesn't even exist!

If the so called threat of global warming wasn't constantly being drum-beated in the news, would anyone even be capable of discerning anything so sinisterly wrong, that it could destroy us all if we don't act AT ONCE?  Example: if someone were to emerge out of a 30-year coma and go outside, they would probably wonder... "what in the world is going on with all this climate change hype? I don't notice anything different with the world!"

And that's the point: climate change is a political hoax of biblical proportions! Take a walk outside; have you noticed anyone in your neighborhood rolling on the ground, coughing violently, and gasping for clean air? And are we about ready to abandon our furnaces because the climate has gotten so dangerously warm? And are people fleeing away in panic from the coastlines ahead of the fast-rising sea levels?

But yet, all we get is warning after warning, threat after threat, and guilt trip-upon-guilt trip, that burning coal is similar to releasing some lethal form of krypto-chloro-mustard gas, and every time you start your car, or eat a cheeseburger you are damaging the environment; and the oceans are about to swamp the cities and replay Katrina vs. New Orleans. And to what end?  It's the master plan to politicize the weather, and open up the way to tax our heavy industries, and raise the cost of gasoline to the point of forcing us into those hideous, insect-bodied, green cars of the future.

But curiously, less than half of Americans surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions. So evidently, much needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as 'green' taxation' or carbon trading, to help them understand how much higher utility bills and gasoline will cost in the near future.

And even more curiously, what would have happened to Obama if he'd campaigned for president on this particular platform of "change"?

So what's all the rush about? If we listen to Obama and the way climate change is being hyped, you'd think there was something akin to a plague of locusts sweeping across the country, devouring the world before them. In a recent D.C. press conference, Obama addressed the nation..."The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," Obama said, after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.

Obama continued..."We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years...this is a matter of urgency and national security... and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

But what kind of scientists is Obama listening to? Mad scientists! Carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on CO2. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in. The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. But the liberal media will have none of the truth!

But If CO2 is a such a powerful greenhouse gas, we would have seen a great warming trend in earthly temperature history, going all the way back 250 years ago to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England. But we haven’t. Recent temperatures, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, have been scarcely warmer than they were 70 to 100 years ago, when meterological records were starting to be kept.

Fossil fuels are not ruining the environment; and the world is not running out of oil. The truth is that we’re all married to fossil fuels. And divorce is not currently in the cards for many of us. Securing the country's supply of oil for our military and for economic expansion  is more important to national security than tackling climate change.

But the politics supporting the notion that fossil fuels equal some sort of calamity around the corner, is leading us to the very thing we want to avoid; a slow-motion economic train crash, caused by the government's liberal agenda over climate change and energy policy,

John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel, recently weighed in last month on climate change: (quote) " Some dastardly scientists, with political motives, manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus" (unquote). Of course, none of the major media outlets chose to pick up the story, or give Coleman's comments any national exposure.

But how about the recent national report quoted  from a magazine article saying that... "a huge chunk of sea ice had broken off an island in the Arctic". So what happened? Boom! All the “man-made” global-warming extremists jumped up and started crying about how we are all doomed, and how this sea ice was just another sign of the end of the world.

But if the meda had bothered to cover to the end of the article, it would have also reported that the island had at one time been free of sea ice about 1,000 years ago, which is evidence that mankind has never been a factor, and never will be able to cause this vast earth to warm up and trigger some climatalogical event of apocalyptic proportions. It is simply not within our power!

The latest observations from balloons and satellites confirm that warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis. But the media remains slanted, and constantly reports about "computer-based climate models" as providing the evidence "supporting" claims that the world is "dangerously warming", and there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like. Yet these same models failed to predict the temperature peak in 1998, and the steadily cooling trend that set in from 2002.

So what does it all mean? Well, it means that only ignorant, uninformed, idiopathic people believe that man is causing global warming. But with the dumbed-down state of our educational system, and the liberal slant of the news, there are enough ignorant uninformed people to total 75%, which is the number of Americans who have been brainwashed into voicing, "they want something done about it" . So lets all blame the sun!

The effect of the sun is the major reason for global warming, to the exclusion of all others. Solar flares and sun spots are the real reason earth gets warmer or cooler. And ocean currents, such as El Nino and La Nina', are the reason for the melting at the poles.

So just ask John Coleman-- it may be a shock to readers that many scientists do not understand the earth’s climate very well enough themselves to make informed judgments about the ACTUAL (not perceived) danger of global warming (er…climate change).

Past events in recorded history show warmer climates have been accompanied by more rain, longer growing seasons, more crops and more land to settle on, and bringing upon times when past civilizations have prospered. CO2 is no problem; it is not a toxic emission, but rather, the gas of life.

The problem is climate change policy, not climate change, which is beyond man’s control. Global warming is a widely accepted myth. World temperatures have fallen from their peak ten years ago while CO2 has been rising rapidly. The world was much warmer in the Bronze age 4,000 years ago and there was much less airborne CO2 then, because none of the rain forests had been cut down. The bounteousness of world vegetation goes up with CO2; so we could use more CO2, not less.

But now, with the prospect of an increasingly Democratic Senate, and a president who will go along with the madness of climatalogically futile energy policies, look for a revival of the old Beatles song, "The Taxman", from the 1966 Revolver album, a bitter song about how much money The Beatles were paying in taxes back then...

        "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
         If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
         If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
         If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...
         Taxman!"