Global Warming Crowd Opposed in Virginia

After global warming has been debunked, omniscient environmentalists changed their rhetoric to global cooling and now to climate-change. Of course, the climate has been changing back and forth for thousands of years without human input, but environmentalists have now noticed because it justifies their man-as-culprit agenda. How else could a minority impose their omnipotent will on the majority?

Because 30,000 readings of temperatures around the globe have shown the earth as cooling since 1997, Al Gore and his supporters have changed their talking points from global warming to climate-change. Record-low temperatures in parts of Eastern Europe caused death tolls from Ukraine to Romania. Two meters of snow covered villages and towns in Romania, such as Buzau, forcing occupants to leave their homes through the roof. Mountains of snow trapped people in their homes and many are feared dead. The waters of the Black Sea froze quite a distance from the shore. Wave protection dams froze in the port of Constanta. In the meantime, in Virginia, the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission was making municipal preparations for sea-level rise caused by climate change. According to the Washington Post, “a well-organized and vocal group of residents has taken a keen interest” in the proceedings, opposing planners and politicians who promote man-made global warming.

---

“The residents’ opposition has focused on a central point: They don’t think climate change is accelerated by human activity, as most climate scientists conclude.” (Washington Post) The truth is that most scientists do not conclude that climate change is caused or accelerated by human activity. One thousand scientists, some of whom had received the Nobel Prize in science, took a one-page ad in the paper stating their disagreement with the faux proclamations of global warming. Darryl Fears describes the area as having “historic geological issues.” “A meteor landed nearby 35 million years ago, creating the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater. In addition, a downward-pressing glacial formation was created during the Ice Age. These ancient events are causing the land to sink, accounting for about one-third of the sea-level change, scientists say.” How science can ascertain with such accuracy the one-third cause of sea-level change is as suspect as the premise that global warming/climate-change is man-made. Municipal planners redesigned the area as a future flood zone. Officials, who use name-calling to discredit the opposition, called the citizens against the plan, “activists acting on a hoax.” The hoax in question is UN Agenda 21. “Agenda 21 is the least thing they should be worried about,” said Patty Glick, senior climate-change specialist for the National Wildlife Federation, “It has no legal or policy implications for local governments in the United States.” Yet 600 communities around the U.S. are members of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the implementation organization of UN Agenda 21. According to Shereen Hughes, a former planning commissioner in James City County, “The uprising against smart growth is ridiculous and a conspiracy theory imagined by fear mongers.” “In Gloucester County, planners sat stone-faced as activists took turns reading portions of the 500-page UN Agenda 21 text, delaying a meeting for more than an hour.” (Washington Post) As usual, progressives find the opposition of conservative citizens annoying because they object to ideas and smart growth plans that Americans never voted on or agreed to. “Agenda 21 is an agenda in name only, environmentalists say.” If UN Agenda 21 is a “conspiracy theory,” environmentalists are spending vast fortunes and UN resources trying to implement it across the globe, with conferences in Rio attended by 179 countries and thousands of delegates both in 1992 and in June 2012. If UN Agenda 21 is a figment of the Agenders’ imagination, why did President Clinton sign Executive Order 12852, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to translate UN Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government? Why did the President’s Council create the first “Sustainable America” with 16 ‘we believe’ statements with the end goal to abolish private property, control education, control and reduce population, and control the economy? In the absence of a global treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a gas that plants need to grow, environmentalists have now switched to two other possible shorter-term culprits that “drive climate change,” methane and soot, also called black carbons. The suggestion to slow global warming is simple, say Brian Vastag and Juliet Eilperin, “to get people in Uganda and India to adopt cleaner-burning stoves,” and to convince farmers in third world countries to plow agricultural waste under instead of burning it. Could we also cork volcanoes from burping ash occasionally into the atmosphere? According to Washington Post, computer simulations by a 24-member international team claim, “reducing methane and soot would slow global warming dramatically – by almost a degree Fahrenheit – by the middle of the century.” I am skeptical of this precision since meteorology science cannot even accurately predict what the temperatures will be tomorrow. The U.S. has spent $60 million to support methane reduction projects overseas and pledged $50 million more, including $5 million to the Arctic Council Initiative to reduce black carbon emissions in Russia. (Emily Cain, State Department) “Environmentalists have always had an agenda to put nature above man. If they can find an end to their means, they do not care how it happens. If they can do it under the guise of global warming and climate change, they will do it.” (Donna Holt, Virginia Campaign for Liberty) Chantell and Mike Sackett’s not yet built dream house in the Idaho Panhandle has become the latest battleground against the EPA and the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. According to developers, corporations, utilities, libertarians, and conservative members of Congress, their fight has become a prime example of the EPA’s “abominable bureaucratic abuse.” The Supreme Court will decide on the four-year battle (Sackett v. EPA) over the 0.63-acre lot, located in a subdivision with sewer hookup, a lot deemed wetlands by the EPA. The EPA has an “important environmental mandate which we don’t deny, but the agency is out of control and has been for some time.” (Damien M. Schiff, the Pacific Legal Foundation) Whether it is EPA onerous powers over wetlands or environmentalists affecting local planning and redesigning properties as flood zones, we are fighting a war against federal regulations and against the implementation of UN Agenda 21 mandates.