Global Warming? Hot Air.
Man made climate change is the biggest single issue of our time. Governments in the West have decided that carbon dioxide, caused by industrial man’s actions, is warming up the planet, and that if we don’t do something, we are going to destroy the planet. While the politicians may believe that the evidence is irrefutable, what is the actual evidence to back up this claim?
The weight of force behind the global warming movement is phenomenal, so much so that levels of reasonable debate are low to none existent. The billion pound industry which deals with the ‘issue’ has a significant amount of credibility. The jobs in this new industry have been created out of nothing, and workers in the sector have no intention of packing up their bags and going home; their livelihoods depend on man made global warming being an issue.
The subject has not escaped government policy makers, and their actions are having a significant effect on the Western world. This ‘green policy’, based around carbon credits and the like, has been a significant time in the making, has its roots firmly embedded in social and economic policy, and will not disappear overnight should the premise of global warming be overturned.
Those who supply products and services are being asked to equate their activities to a quantity of carbon dioxide, the lower the emissions, the better the classification. Companies may declare themselves ‘carbon neutral’ if they offset their emissions by planting trees which will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. While everyone is focussed in on the question ‘How can we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions?’, shouldn’t we be standing back a bit further and asking ‘It is really something that we need to worry about?’. Is CO2 really an issue, or just a natural consequence of life on planet earth?
Cooling Tower by mattfoster
While the environmental press may have you convinced that the facts are undisputed, a quick look at the opinions of people who actually know what they’re talking about may leave you in some doubt. A survey of all 530 of the world’s climatologists was undertaken in 2003. They were asked whether they thought the scientific debate about climate change was over. 44% agreed, 46% disagreed and 10% were unsure. It seems the facts are not as undisputed as the environmental press would have you believe.[1]
In spite of this, the global warming naysayer is still very much in a minority, and not a popular one at that. The mainstream UK press and those who read it to form their beliefs are typically of the opinion that it is a problem that requires immediate action. Indeed the force behind the movement is so great that public admission of non-belief in (man made) global warming is met with considerable scorn.
One fact that cannot be disputed is that there is a multi-billion dollar industry catering to the cause, employing millions directly and many more indirectly. Doubtless these people enjoy having a job and the income stream it generates, and doubtless they wouldn’t be too pleased if it was announced overnight that global warming isn’t caused by man. I would imagine they’d do everything they could to stop that from happening.
When you are looking at a subject as complicated and unpredictable as the weather, I don’t think a consensus will ever be reached; there are too many variables. The split opinions of the climatologists is a case in point. I also suspect that they would be the first to tell you that it is more or a black art than a true science.
Like many other economic booms out there, sometimes its just easier to run along with the herd than to stand in the way and risk being stampeded. Essentially the precautionary principle when applied to CO2 and global warming produces a statement which looks something like this:
“If carbon dioxide produced by man’s industrial activities is responsible for the global rise in temperature, if we can cut our emissions to an acceptable level (whatever that may be), and convince every other nation in the world to do the same, then ultimately we might be better off than if we had just stood by and done nothing.”
Does this sound like a well thought out plan? Not really. It sounds very much like scaremongering, and action from a place of fear never yields satisfying results. When you go on to consider how much cash is being spent on a “just in case” scenario, it makes you wonder whether this money might be better spent elsewhere.
But what if we are screwing up the planet? Surely you can’t put a cost on saving the earth? I mean, we do only have one planet, and once it’s gone, we’re stuffed! I’m sure many a UK citizen would agree with that, but what about the rest of the world, who perhaps don’t have the spare cash to be spending on luxuries, or perhaps who haven’t bought into the same beliefs as we have? Economies of China, India and Africa want to industrialise, and they will need lots of cheap energy in the form of Oil Gas an Coal. Carbon dioxide emissions is not an issue that ever crosses their minds.
We have enjoyed industrialisation for many years, now it is the turn of China, India and Africa. They are looking forward to products and services that we have enjoyed for many years. It is totally inappropriate for us to demand that these countries behave in a particular way to suit our carbon plans for the future. We couldn’t wield a stick big enough to make that happen. I wouldn’t expect them to buy into such a ridiculous notion. What they may lack in technology, they more than make up for in their understanding of life on planet earth.
The UK government has a choice about how it goes ahead with these carbon reforms, even though the evidence is weak, and growing weaker by the day. But what we cannot do, is tell anyone else what to do. The Kyoto Protocol looks more and more absurd every day, as the target appear less and less achievable. The taxpayer will be paying an additional premium directly into the pockets of the businesses who work within the ‘carbon economy’.
The end result is that UK products and services will become more expensive, especially when competing in a global market with others who do not share our less than optimistic outlook on life. More likely, Western industrialists interested in the bottom line will welcome the opportunity to move their production to countries which don’t have such restrictive environmental legislation, thereby circumventing the legislation, avoiding carbon tax, and any reduction in carbon emissions. I doubt very much that the Chinese will be making use of our thriving carbon trading industry.
Meanwhile, politicians can do nothing but sit on the fence, being very aware of the apparent oxymoron of “CO2 friendly / Economic growth”; they are asked to stimulate economic growth on the one hand, and save the planet on the other. Economic growth means production, means motion, means carbon dioxide emissions which, they tell us, are destroying the planet. So what can governments do? Not a lot, it seems. Maybe raise a bit of revenue through taxation?
Grangemouth Refinery, by Scottog
My aim here is not to pitch into the global warming debate with statistics or evidence of any kind. Many such things exist, and can be gathered to effect any result required (see below). I merely ask you to look to your common sense to see the reality of the situation. It would be nice if more people didn’t just take the press’s word for it, and considered the situation from a logical viewpoint, the viewpoint from the basis of life itself. When viewed from this perspective, the premise seems ridiculous.
Consider this planet we are living on. Was is just a cosmic mistake? Is it all random? How did it all come to be, in all of it’s beauty, perfection, and magnificence? How can the earth be such a perfectly balanced environment, providing it’s inhabitants with everything that they have ever identified that they need, in abundance (we have never run out of anything). Who or what lies behind this wonderful creation? If you believe that there is some creative force that has put all of this in place, then do you honestly think that it would allow the destruction of the planet, billions of years in the making, because of the burning of some previous recycled generations who inhabited the earth before?
This expansion is eternal, and will never cease to be. So if this joy of expansion is at the basis of life, then we aren’t exactly going to down tools and accept that we’ve got the job done, and that its time to stop creating, that everything is as good as it ever will be, and we can go home now. Its a completely absurd idea. We will be constantly making more, creating new things and finding better ways of living life (including ways of living more in harmony with our wonderful resource-full planet).
The carbon debate reflects man’s creativity in flowing energy in new and creative ways. The only thing is, it is based on a false premise; that man is responsible for such grand scale effects such as the weather, or the temperature. The planet is a platform for us to create upon. We are not expected to adjust the orbit of the earth, nor the humidity in the atmosphere, nor the temperature of the sun. This is all being dealt with elsewhere. If you feel like it’s an impossible task to save the planet, there’s good reason; it’s not your job.
What is good is the spin offs of the situation; perceived shortage of oil, lack of security of energy supplies, pollution, oil wars all lead to cleaner alternative fuels developed. These are cleaner, less reliant on foreigners and their unstable economic or political systems, and reduce the squabbling over the ‘finite’ resources of planet earth. Even so, the planet is finding its balance and we cannot do anything to affect its stability.
Stand back and take a broader view. Think about planet earth, how it spins in its orbit without any input from man. Consider how it provides year after year more and more food and clean water and clean air. As a design, it has been pretty well thought through. Yet we stand here complaining about the minuscule amount of things which we think are going wrong and get ourselves into a mess about it. I’m sure we will continue to develop more ways of living that are cleaner and less polluting, but let’s not forget how much is going well, and how stable this planet is, and how the resources are actually infinite.
As time passes, and fewer and fewer people are seeing the devastation predicted by the doom-mongers, the tide is gradually turning in the global warming debate. It is also becoming apparent how much money is up for grabs to those who are happy to work within the field. Is the world really warming up? As I stood on my patio in London in early February, building a considerable snowman, I pondered the question myself. Of course my snowman building skill were a bit rusty. The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change was held in March 2009, and asked the question “Global warming, was it ever an issue”. It seems that some are already talking about the issue in the past tense.
I won’t suggest for a moment that George W Bush was wrong; but he did resist climate change policy for a long time. He also hails from the large and powerful Bush oil family, who naturally want to sell oil to the people. On the other side of the coin is Al Gore’s travelling global warming show, and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which has been show to scare school children all over the western world. The documentary grossed over $49m, turning out to be something more convenient for Mr Gore.
Had Mr Gore called his film something like “Global Warming, it’s probably nothing”, one suspects he wouldn’t have made his money back, let alone any profit. Instead along with his book, the movie turned out to be quite a profitable pitch for his ‘earth services’.
I am not in any way suggesting that any of this is wrong. In fact it is quite natural, and totally understandable. People act out of self-interest, always. While it might appear that they are being altruistic, there is always something in it for them. This is how the world works. Relationships, Jobs, Religion, Politics, etc. Whats in it for me? Economics rules because people act out of self interest and they always want to thrive as much as possible.
Fortunately there are other offerings which add some well needed balance to the debate; programs such as Martin Durkin’s 2007 polemic documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which shows that not all of the worlds scientists agree with the established view, and still have the capacity to continually question evidence, as any good scientist should.
I expect in the years to come that some balance will be restored to the debate. It is currently extremely one sided, as those who report it, stand to gain from its continuation, and those who believe all is well have less air-time. Unfortunately a huge quantity of legislation is being produced which will be around for some time to come. Not all of this is bad however, and the majority of it is in line with the population’s desire to coexist happily with our planet.
I care about this planet, and I want it to be as clean and as healthy as possible, and anything that we can do to make it better, we should. But when you start taking action from a massively flawed premise, I just cannot see how any good can come of it. People have become so brainwashed by this issue that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Many people want this to be an issue so they can benefit from it.
I was slightly embarrassed to read, in a recent engineering journal, professional engineers talk of Geo-Engineering; their plans to stop the planet from warming up. Have they lost all perspective? It seems they think their actions can have some impact on Mother Nature. It may give them something to do, but it will not yield any noticeable results. There are some things which we cannot control. The earth is one such thing. It was a good laugh to read their propositions, however.
The planet is not in a state of regression; it is the best that it has ever been. It is evolving like all of the species upon it (it’s sometimes hard to believe this is the case with human beings, they are so short-sighted), it’s been around for billions of years and it will be around in billions more. As will human beings. Let’s put this issue into perspective; humans didn’t create the planet, and they won’t destroy it. There is a larger force at work, who’s done some pretty fabulous design work in the past. It’s all under control.
[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003
Related posts:
- Global Warming or Hot Air? Global warming, or more accurately man-made global warming is the...
- Global Warming, the Global Hot Topic Outline...
- Global Warming Quicker Than Forecast An increasingly large amount of scientific research, published since the...
- To Halt Global Warming, Use Earth Friendly Products If you wish to assist contribute to the efforts to...
- To Halt Global Warming, Use Earth Friendly Products If you wish to help contribute to the efforts to...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a Reply