Does anyone remember the ozone hole or acid rain? Some have vague memories of what at the time were popular scares. These harbingers of death appeared on the scene with a roar, but soon exited with a whimper.

It seems that no matter what new “trendy crisis” that happens along, the media is more than willing to warn mankind of this new danger in order to generate several months, if not years of gratifying headlines. Scientist also glorify in the attention as they receive months of flattering publicity, scientific papers and financial rewards. While the media and scientist delight in this adulation, the public finds itself in the awkward position of having to endure the anxiety of impending doom.

The most durable in the trendy crisis phenomenon is the manufactured dangers of global warming. Since the Earth’s climate is always in flux, the scaremongers seize the opportunity to convince otherwise reasonable people that man is responsible for global warming.

The sewage of all newspapers, the New York Times wrote. “… the consequences could be disastrous: further melting at the poles, sea levels rising high enough to submerge island nations, the elimination of one-quarter or more of the world’s species, widespread famine in places like Africa, more violent hurricanes.” What’s more, there is no time to waste: “… the world must stabilize the emission of greenhouse gases by 2015, begin to reduce them shortly thereafter and largely free itself of carbon-emitting technologies by mid-century.’

The NYT offered support in a report from the International Panel of Climate Change. They claim that this group of 2500 is the world’s most authoritative voice on global warming. However, 19,000 scientists have established that the IPCC’s view or opinion is in question. They have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. This list is available at www.oism.org/pproject.

We know the scientists and media’s stake in the game. Why are the global warming scaremongers so interested in forcing up the price of energy and lowering the emissions levels? The US relies on fossil fuels for 85% of its energy. Coal provides half of the electricity. Why is it necessary to cripple if not collapse the economy to meet some imaginary target emissions level. Perhaps the target is not so much an environmental goal as what is necessary for total economic collapse.

Fortunately, there are members of the scientific community who are stepping forward and speaking out against those that insist on spreading deceit. If the scientist of truth continue to speak out then we can also expect global warming to disappear into history with a whimper.