| Global Warming? Hot Air. |
| Written by Andrew Goodman | |
| Sunday, 19 April 2009 | |
|
Global warming, or more accurately man-made global warming is the single biggest moral and political issue of our age. The western governments have bought into the notion that carbon dioxide produced by mans industrial activities is causing a rise in the temperature of the planet, that this temperature rise must be stopped to avoid global catastrophe. But what substantiating evidence exists to back up this claim?
Global warming, or more accurately man-made global warming is the single biggest moral and political issue of our age. The western governments have bought into the notion that carbon dioxide produced by mans industrial activities is causing a rise in the temperature of the planet, that this temperature rise must be stopped to avoid global catastrophe. But what substantiating evidence exists 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? Photo of Cooling Tower by Matt Foster 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] Even so, in popular society, the climate change denier is very much like a small boy whistling in the dark. He has neither the support of the UK press, nor those who rely on it for their opinions. Is it possible that the global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that to deny that global warming is an issue (let alone man's work) is tantamount to global treason? 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. I don't think that true evidence will ever be found to prove or disprove the issue. As the split in opinion of climatologists demonstrates, climate is a highly complex science, and unlikely to be definitively understood by man any time soon, if ever. When faced with an escalating boom in any field, it is far easier to go along with the established ideas, than to field your own opinions on the subject and risk the isolation from the mainstream. The man made global warming issue, when considered in terms of the precautionary principle, would read as follows: "If carbon dioxide is warming up the planet, and man is responsible for it, and if we can reduce our CO2 emissions, and persuade every other country globally to follow our lead, then things might not be as bad as they would have been, had we not taken any action." 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, I hear you cry, if we are screwing up the planet, surely doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how much it costs, I mean this is our planet we are talking about? Well, many UK citizens would agree with that statement, but it is a big IF, and not everyone has the luxury of such an insurance policy; many people are living day to day, and they want solutions now. Lets take the developing world, for example. Trying to convince China, India and Africa to consider CO2 emissions will probably raise a laugh or two, but very little more. It would be unacceptable for us to stifle their expansion because we have a theory that is based largely on speculation and complex computer models of the future, which says that the world is being destroyed. These nations may be developing industrially, but I suspect their innate understanding of spirituality is considerably stronger than ours. British politicians can decide what we as a country are going to do, but we have no power to tell anyone else in the world what they should do. If we decide that carbon taxation is the future, even in the absence of any definitive evidence, then the UK taxpayer will have to foot the bill; revenue collected by the government will line the pockets of the organisations which have sprung up to cater for the carbon economy. What happens is that the UK sourced products and services will have an additional cost implication, making it harder for us to compete in the global market as we intentionally handicap ourselves. Business answers to the shareholders, and if the costs get too high, they just move production elsewhere, circumventing the legislation, the carbon tax, and doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions. So our rapidly developing carbon management business will be useful only to the UK, and actually not that useful on the grand scale of things. 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? Joy lies at the basis of the eternal expansion of this universe, and man and his creative thinking is what drives that evolution. To suggest that we've reached a peak in our creation, and that now society is diminishing in some way, is absurd. We must have an excuse to continue to create. To invent new and better ways of doing things, of living, of having fun, or living more in harmony with our planet. If we cannot, we surely die because there is no desire and when desire is gone, so has life. 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 comes out of this scenario is many great things; alternative fuels, cleaner modes of transport, less reliance on foreign oil and consequently less wars over it, a way of life more in keeping with the environment and the planet, more efficient use of resources, to name but a few. All of these will be created. But the planet is fine regardless, and nothing we do can ever affect that 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 goes on, more and more people are beginning to ask questions about this global warming phenomenon. Is the world really warming up, and what are the implications? Is this a serious issue, or just another press fuelled scare story? Well, there are a number of global warming naysayers out there who do not subscribe to the notion that we are destroying the planet through our activities. Many of these will be attending the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change which took place in New York 8-10 March 2009 and asked the question "Global warming, was it ever an issue". 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. If Al gore had titled his film, "Global Warming, don't worry it's all going to be OK", one suspects he would have struggles to get back his investment in the project, although he might have done us a great service. Gore has a number of businesses catering to the Global Warming. I'm sure his film and book on the subject did no harm at all to their order books. 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. Martin Durkin's 2007 offering "The Great Global Warming Swindle" took a contrarian view, suggesting that the issue has sprung up out of self interest of those who seek to profit from it. It turns out that not all of the world's eminent scientists agree that man is warming up the planet. They actually argue that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations follows temperature rise, and not the other way round. I anticipate in the near future a more balanced approach to the debate. It is currently extremely one sided and is producing an enormous amount of legislation. I also have no doubt that most want to live in harmony with our beautiful planet and will continue to find ways to do so. 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. The new term Geo-Engineering is an interesting idea. Engineers believe that they have to act to do something about the global temperature rise. Some ideas touted have been, giant sailing ships spraying clouds of water vapour into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with iron to promote algal blooms which trap CO2 and then sink to the ocean floor, and my personal favourite, the giant sun shades in space to reflect back the sun. I wouldn't want to live under one of those. But seriously, the good news is, that the planet is fine. In fact it is evolving like all of the species that are living and thriving upon it. It was spinning quite merrily in its orbit for billions of years before man turned up, and it will be spinning quite happily in many billennia to come. Man's activities, however serious they might appear, are about as significant to this planet as a very small flea on the back of a very big dog. [1] Heartland Institute Study 2003 The Article Author: The Author is an experienced spiritual writer and metaphysical teacher. He writes thought provoking articles for HappyHappyHappyNews.com, the place on the net for positive upbeat news articles. Follow the link for alternative tips on how to ride out the recession. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
