I would encourage you all to listen to the following two interviews. Kimber is not mentioned, nor is gold or silver. What these interviews deal with is change, and how change, even when predictable or examinable is still rejected, unstudied and by and large ignored. Bull

Gallego, Two great interviews that I think you will enjoy. Both deal with the subject of economic effects of climate changes. The first is an interview by Jim Puplava with William Houston and Robin Griffith who recently wrote a book entitled Water: the Final Resource. Also in "other voices" Puplava interviews Evelyn Browning Garris who discusses decadal cycles. She starts at the 31:24 mark of that portion of the show. Thought you would be interested in both of these interviews. They can be found here:

www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.html

Also, I am pasting a portion of the recent newsletter from the Casey Report. His observations about global warming resonate very deeply with me. Especially his belief that man is a very insignificant player involving earth, weather or temperature changes. I think we are coming to the end of an age of vanity. How fitting that at the end of that age man would think that something he is doing is actually changing singificantly changing the weather of the earth!

Global Smarming by Doug Casey

This is on just about everybody’s list of Big Problems. Except mine. I’m not a professional climatologist, or even an amateur, so I lack any technical qualifications for commenting on the subject – like almost everybody else who does, prominently including Algore. But my guess is that in the next decade, the global warming hysteria (and that’s exactly what I believe it is) will be viewed, with embarrassment, as one of the great episodes in the history of the delusions of the crowd.

Have you noticed that “global warming” is gradually being supplanted by “climate change”? The fact is that the earth’s climate has been changing constantly for at least 500 million years and has generally gotten much cooler over that time. It has certainly warmed since the end of the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago, and was much warmer than now at the height of the Roman Empire. It cooled during what became known as the Dark Ages, warmed again during medieval times (when grapes grew in Greenland and northern England), and cooled again during the Little Ice Age (which ended about 200 years ago). During the ‘70s, as you may recall, some magazines ran cover stories featuring glaciers intruding into New York City. And for the last ten years, it appears the Earth has been cooling, although that’s not widely reported. Change is a constant when it comes to the climate, and warmer is generally better.

Is the science “settled” on the subject? The very concept strikes me as ridiculous, in that science is rarely “settled” on anything short of it being proclaimed a law of nature. And, contrary to popular opinion, it seems most scientists with credentials in the field are either agnostic on the question or debunk the proposition of anthropogenic global warming. But the intellectual climate is such that most scientists are afraid to question out loud the reality of warming. Since almost all funding today comes from politically correct sources, namely the government and foundations, the money goes to those who are known to be looking for the “right” answers. Science has been corrupted.

Of course man can change the environment. But our power to do so is trivial next to the sun, volcanism, cosmic rays, and the churning ocean. None of those forces gets any mention in the popular press, which fixates on carbon, which has replaced plutonium as public enemy #1. Carbon may be the basis of life on earth, but it’s supposed to be our new enemy nonetheless. The masses, who don’t even know carbon is a “natural” element and think the periodic table is a piece of antique furniture now feel guilty about breathing, because exhaled breath is a source of CO2.

Interestingly, a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels doesn’t precede but follows, by several hundred years, phases of global warming. Everything you hear about saving the planet through carbon credits is as ridiculous and counterproductive as recent disastrous programs to turn corn into ethanol. In any event, carbon dioxide’s effects as a greenhouse gas are completely overwhelmed by those of water vapor. God forbid anyone warns the public of the numerous dangers posed by compounds like dihydrogen monoxide (also known as hydroxic acid).

As a lifelong science buff, I find the whole subject quite interesting and am tempted to do an article on it. The reason I mention it here, however, is that the global warming hysteria, as opposed to possible cyclical global warming itself, has serious economic consequences. The chances are excellent that governments will direct scores of billions of dollars into further research, devising computer projections of catastrophe to come, and fighting the presumed warming. Much more serious are laws they’ll pass in the war against carbon (and methane, which amounts to a war against cattle and sheep), which could retard the economy by hundreds of billions of dollars. Most serious, in the long run, is likely to be a discrediting of science itself in the eyes of the common man once anthropogenic warming is exposed as a giant false alarm.

It’s actually been quite a while since I’ve gotten an outraged letter canceling a subscription. I expect and will welcome (even though it makes my excellent partner, David Galland, roll his eyes) furious letters for denying Anthropogenic Global Warming. But writers, do me a favor, in the interest of intellectual honesty. And also because I always like to learn something new. Give me a reference as to why you’re a believer. Please don’t include Algore or any tertiary news reports as evidence.