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?
It is getting increasingly more difficult to have a sensible discussion on the topic, such is its impetus, and the strongly held beliefs of its followers. A whole multi-billion pound industry has been created literally out of thin air, and will not take kindly to being told that its existence is superfluous.
In addition, significant policy changes have been taking place to adopt the notion of man made global warming, the government taking the view that the evidence of the link is ‘irrefutable’. A bold move indeed. These policies will influence social and fiscal policymaking and will be around many years to come, even as the ‘truth’ of the matter comes to light.
Carbon is the buzzword of our times, being used to categorise how environmentally friendly products and services are; from plasma televisions to corporate business activities. Companies have the opportunity to be environmentally sensitive, by offsetting their carbon dioxide emissions. This invariably involves the planting of trees, which absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. It seems that everyone is asking how we can best reduce our CO2 emissions. Yet, shouldn’t we still be asking why we feel the need to do that in the first place? Is CO2 a real issue, or just a natural by-product of life?
Picture 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.
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.
Regardless of the size of the computer that they apply to modelling the coming weather patterns and climate of the earth, the global warming debate will never reach a satisfying conclusion. The weather is a complex and highly variable science, and no-one truly understands how the earth keeps itself in balance. This is not about to change any time soon.
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.”
Now, would you make a decision about spending over one hundred billion dollars on the statement above? President Obama seems to think it’s a good use of money. Action from such a place can never give you decent results; fear and panic have never formed the basis of any sound decision making that I’m aware of.
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 can decide individually what it wants to do regarding CO2, but it cannot force anyone else to join it on its righteous quest to save the planet. If the UK decides to forge ahead with these carbon reforms, even though no definitive evidence exists (or will ever exist), then John Q. Taxpayer will have to pay this conscience tax. The revenue will be collected by governments in tax collecting schemes, and redistributed to organisations that work within the CO2 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.
The politicians realise that they have to be seen to be doing something, they also realise that there is a very real opportunity to create jobs out of nowhere, so they push the issue forward. It is also highly popular and gets them votes, so they pursue it given the ‘facts’, or lack thereof. In the current economic climate it has never been clearer that economic growth, consumption and environmentally friendly policies do not necessarily go hand in hand; Economic growth means production, motion, consumption, all of which means energy usage, which means carbon dioxide emissions, which are apparently destroying the planet.
Oil Refinery at Grangemouth, photo 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.
If you stand back and ask the question, why are we here? I know this sounds barmy but bear with me here, folks. What gets you out of bed in the morning? What is it that you enjoy about life? What is it that you enjoy about being alive here on this planet? Life is in a constant state of evolution, (yes evolution is still happening, were not done yet!) and we human beings are evolving just like all of the other life forms around us. We are creating new wonderful technologies to make our lives better. We are running faster, jumping higher, we are expanding our knowledge, we are improving our techniques for living, and we are having fun creating things that have not been 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.
Just consider for a moment how this planet spins in its orbit in perfect proximity to other planets. Consider how the sun rises every day, consider that there is an abundant clean water supply, and the air purifies itself. Consider that food grows on the planet year after year after year. We have an abundance of everything that we need from Mother Nature, more than enough for everyone on the planet. Yes, I believe that we will find more harmonious ways to live on this planet. But we shouldn’t curse the wonderful resources provided by Mother Earth for the benefit of mankind.
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’m not having a go at Dubya, but have you ever considered that he strongly resisted any climate change policy for a long time, and that he also comes from a Texas oil family? Similarly, Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, is widely regarded as the mainstream representation of evidence for man-made global warming. It turned out to be quite a convenient movie for Gore; grossing over $ 49million at the box office.
I suspect, had he titled his film, “Global Warming, it might not be a problem”, he wouldn’t have motivated quite so many people into the movie theatres. Al Gore is, unsurprisingly, himself involved in a number of organisations which cater to the global warming business. One might consider his movie and book about global warming as a highly profitable sales pitch for his businesses.
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 hope that in the coming months and years that more and more balance is restored to the debate. At present, it all seems to be extremely one sided, an established fact and I suspect that title is undeserved. The regulations spawned from the premise grow daily. There is no doubt that the majority want to live more in harmony with our beautiful planet.
I’m sure we will continue to find better ways of doing things. I suspect that in the near future we will all find something else to focus upon, and the issue carbon management and global warming will fade away and be forgotten about as people regain their faith in life, and in the resilience of planet earth. We’re in good hands folks.
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.
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.
 Heartland Institute Study 2003
By AlexAntropov86 from Pixabay