Iwo Jima = Global Warming?

I saw this cover of Time magazine a couple of days ago and tried to start framing my thoughts about the serious problem that it represents. I don't think that I have arrived at any real clarity of thought yet, but I will try to present why it is so disturbing to me.

First, the image of U.S. marines planting our flag on top of Mount Suribachi has become a symbol of the determination that we showed as a nation to rid the world of both the European and Asian variants of fascism. The Battle of Iwo Jima has been called some of the fiercest fighting in the Pacific theater. About 21,000 Japanese soldiers defended the island while the U.S. forces were in excess of 100,000. The end result was over 20,000 dead Japanese and over 26,000 U.S. casualties (~7,000 dead). The bloodiness of the battle and the difficulties the U.S. forces encountered in taking this small island have been cited as one of the factors that President Truman used in deciding to use atomic weapons against the main island of Japan.

So, there is this theory called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that says driving an SUV, producing electricity, choosing the wrong pet products, and forgetting or neglecting to recycle are causing a catastrophic temperature increase that will end life on the planet as we know it. There are MANY respected scientists and engineers that believe that there is no crisis. In fact, the reason why most of them don't believe there is a crisis is because when a theory (or model) doesn't agree with reality, you have to choose the reality regardless of how elegant or convenient the theory is.

Now, putting the image together with the theory of AGW, are we being asked to sacrifice our current economy, future prosperity, and, quite possibly, our lives in an effort to "Win the War on Global Warming?" Although I have not read the article, I am going to assume that we are.

I have written on the lack of peer review (Wanted: Fact Checker), the lack of computer model validation (A Nuclear Engineer's View of Validation), lack of critical examination of model assumptions (The Problem of Choice), and just plain ol' bad science ("But where does the HEAT go?"). I am absolutely convinced that AGW theory is being used for at least these two (if not more) things: (1) A method for climate scientists and other scammers to maintain a funding stream that will dry up when the facts see the light of day; and (2) A means of scaring people into giving the federal government and the United Nations more of their money and more control of their lives.

What bothers me about this image is that Time magazine either is being duped into being a tool of the social engineers and environmental wackos, or is willingly producing propaganda that the average American will not investigate further. I find the first proposition highly unlikely, so I am forced to conclude that this magazine has become an outright propaganda organ of a socialist view of the environment. I am not ready to sacrifice my freedoms for a highly suspect view of the environmental damage that I supposedly produce by simply being an average American. However, if Time magazine has their editorial way, I am sure I will soon find myself in the minority.

By the way, if carbon dioxide becomes an environmental hazard in the Environmental Protection Agency (United Nations) sense of the word, then EVERY BREATH YOU EXHALE is now capable of being regulated by some government.

That should give you some idea about what lies at the end of this rainbow: A totalitarian jackpot.