The Myth about Footprints.

One would think that the media would be all a buzz over the recent BBC interview with University of East Anglia Climate Change Unit director Phil Jones. One may also think that those who job is to investigate for truth would be on an all out fact finding mission. The revelations exposed by the BBC, were to a lot of media sources, a quick story and a passing fancy. Luckily for the internet and a few media outlets that still hold honesty integral to the industry, the public is finally becoming aware of the fiction that is Climate Change.

Professor Jones seemingly "came clean" during his interview, and many on the side of skepticism even applauded his courage. Jones had revealed information that would change the whole climate change debate, but only after his involvement was discovered in the 'Climategate' email scandal. Now we learn that there has been 'no significant' global warming since 1995, that means neither from man made nor natural causes. One year with increased solar activity could have demonstrated a warming trend, but not once in 15 years has there been enough warming to support their global warming theory. Three times in the last 150 years has there been similar warming trends, two of which where before any major industrialization. That would go to support that it is a natural phase or at the very least, out of the control of mankind. Professor Jones is neither courageous or a hero for telling the truth. Through his deceit, companies were penalized, jobs have been destroyed, people have been attacked over lifestyle choices, and trillions of dollars of legislation have been passed around the world stifling growth, all in the name of climate change.

The great beneficiary of this fraud, the United Nations. Through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), the U.N. encouraged the production of evidence supporting man made climate change. The goals of the U.N. were made clear during the Copenhagen conference in 2009. They desire the ability to make global policies that would effect all countries. One could only speculate to what end that would be. Never the less, the first policies passed would have had wealthier and more industrialized nations subject to punitive taxation in order to support and prepare for U.N. membership, lesser industrialized countries.

So though Professor Jones' interview, skeptics have won a great victory and the debate is over? Don't count on it. The people behind this are very serious about their goals and are willing to use whatever means are necessary to achieve them. We can expect claims of small errors taken out of context, the coercion of Phil Jones, or maybe even operatives planting false data over the last decade. Even if climate change is totally debunked, they will find another disaster caused by humans and raise the call to collectivism once again. Any way we look at it, don't expect the progressive agenda to fade into the long goodnight.

In order to protect ourselves from this happening again, we must really be cautious of what we are being told, and from whom is telling us. We should not trust scientific research to be conducted by groups or agencies that have political backing. In that circumstance the outcome will certainly lean towards it's political bias. Perhaps we can stop believing that human existence is a blight on the earth, and work toward a more fruitful future. It is most certainly time to tune out those who talk about creating limitations for the greater good.