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.
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.
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?
Photo of Cooling Tower by Matt Foster
It seems that nowadays the facts of global warming are largely undisputed. In 2003, a survey was carried out involving all 530 of the worlds climatologists. When asked whether they thought the scientific debate about climate change is over, 44% agreed, 10% were uncertain, and 46% disagreed with the statement [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.
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 we are right about carbon dioxide warming up the planet, and that man is responsible for it, and we can successfully reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and also persuade everyone else in the world to do the same, then it might make things better than they would have been had we not done anything."
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.
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.
If this happens, we in the UK will certainly have this additional cost added to our products and services, making them less competitive than products from countries which have no such concerns about carbon. It is more likely that shrewd businessmen, who ultimately answer to the bottom line, will just move their production elsewhere. This avoids the issue, but does nothing to combat the perceived threat of carbon emissions. While we may have an up-and-coming business sector in carbon management, I doubt we will be doing any business with the Chinese in this regard.
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 Oil Refinery, Scotland by scottog
It is not my intention to get involved in the debate with tales of woe and melting ice caps. Mr Gore and his contemporaries have covered that well enough (see below). I merely suggest you assess the situation with a broader view and to try to consider that such an occurrence might in fact be nothing more than self serving alarmism, from certain interested parties. The planet is in a constant state of flux, but never before have so many paid so much attention to it, and gathered so many statistics. As if they somehow have some significance to anything. The premise of global warming is flawed. Allow me to explain.
The planet is evolving, the universe is expanding, and we humans are an integral part of that. The planet has been billions of years in the making, and whoever or whatever intelligence lies behind it is not likely to let it go to the dogs because we're burning a bit of coal, oil or gas. (Consider also the clever recycling process of previous lifeforms into these useful fuel sources we shun) As clever as we are, we do not control the earth, or what happens on it. The earth regulates itself, it finds its natural balance regardless of our actions. Those who speak of impending destruction have lost all faith, and forgotten the truth about life and the unending expansion of the universe. We are all still evolving, the humans, the animals, the plants, even the planet.
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 debate on CO2 is a reflection of man's creative efforts. It's all good really, but it is based on a false premise; that man is responsible for the planet. Actually, this planet was created as a stable solid platform for man to create upon. It's fair to say that there are forces outside of our creative control dealing with stuff like that. Let them get on with it. It's no surprise that people feel overwhelmed when they consider how they will save the planet; it's not their 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.
Rather than looking st what's going wrong with the planet, let's just consider for a moment how much is going right. Consider how planet earth spins merrily in its orbit without bumping into other planets, we have an abundance of everything that we need, food grows year after year, air is purified, water is purified, the planet is a giant recycling machine, recycling the energy of life year after year. I'm sure we will develop better ways of living in harmony with the earth, but we mustn't ever forget how stable and secure our world is. The animals don't worry and they seems to get on just fine. How can so many curse the wonderful resources which are provided for our benefit?
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.
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 do not mean to say that this is in any way bad behaviour; quite the reverse. It is natural for someone to be acting out of self-interest, even when faced with a very public role, and wielding considerable power. They might appear to be acting in altruistic ways, but the WIIFM (what's in it for me) factor is always present. Money makes the world go round. Economics is where the power lies. Relationships, jobs, religion, politics, they are all about economics. Economics is driven by personal self interest to thrive. When you can see the world from that premise, it all starts to make more sense.
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 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.
There is no doubt that we can find better, more environmentally friendly ways of living. But as the carbon debate continues, I suspect that people will start to see how ridiculous a notion it is, and quite how brainwashed they have become by those who stand to gain from its continuation.
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.
[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003
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.
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.
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?
Photo of Cooling Tower by Matt Foster
It seems that nowadays the facts of global warming are largely undisputed. In 2003, a survey was carried out involving all 530 of the worlds climatologists. When asked whether they thought the scientific debate about climate change is over, 44% agreed, 10% were uncertain, and 46% disagreed with the statement [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.
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 we are right about carbon dioxide warming up the planet, and that man is responsible for it, and we can successfully reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and also persuade everyone else in the world to do the same, then it might make things better than they would have been had we not done anything."
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.
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.
If this happens, we in the UK will certainly have this additional cost added to our products and services, making them less competitive than products from countries which have no such concerns about carbon. It is more likely that shrewd businessmen, who ultimately answer to the bottom line, will just move their production elsewhere. This avoids the issue, but does nothing to combat the perceived threat of carbon emissions. While we may have an up-and-coming business sector in carbon management, I doubt we will be doing any business with the Chinese in this regard.
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 Oil Refinery, Scotland by scottog
It is not my intention to get involved in the debate with tales of woe and melting ice caps. Mr Gore and his contemporaries have covered that well enough (see below). I merely suggest you assess the situation with a broader view and to try to consider that such an occurrence might in fact be nothing more than self serving alarmism, from certain interested parties. The planet is in a constant state of flux, but never before have so many paid so much attention to it, and gathered so many statistics. As if they somehow have some significance to anything. The premise of global warming is flawed. Allow me to explain.
The planet is evolving, the universe is expanding, and we humans are an integral part of that. The planet has been billions of years in the making, and whoever or whatever intelligence lies behind it is not likely to let it go to the dogs because we're burning a bit of coal, oil or gas. (Consider also the clever recycling process of previous lifeforms into these useful fuel sources we shun) As clever as we are, we do not control the earth, or what happens on it. The earth regulates itself, it finds its natural balance regardless of our actions. Those who speak of impending destruction have lost all faith, and forgotten the truth about life and the unending expansion of the universe. We are all still evolving, the humans, the animals, the plants, even the planet.
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 debate on CO2 is a reflection of man's creative efforts. It's all good really, but it is based on a false premise; that man is responsible for the planet. Actually, this planet was created as a stable solid platform for man to create upon. It's fair to say that there are forces outside of our creative control dealing with stuff like that. Let them get on with it. It's no surprise that people feel overwhelmed when they consider how they will save the planet; it's not their 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.
Rather than looking st what's going wrong with the planet, let's just consider for a moment how much is going right. Consider how planet earth spins merrily in its orbit without bumping into other planets, we have an abundance of everything that we need, food grows year after year, air is purified, water is purified, the planet is a giant recycling machine, recycling the energy of life year after year. I'm sure we will develop better ways of living in harmony with the earth, but we mustn't ever forget how stable and secure our world is. The animals don't worry and they seems to get on just fine. How can so many curse the wonderful resources which are provided for our benefit?
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.
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 do not mean to say that this is in any way bad behaviour; quite the reverse. It is natural for someone to be acting out of self-interest, even when faced with a very public role, and wielding considerable power. They might appear to be acting in altruistic ways, but the WIIFM (what's in it for me) factor is always present. Money makes the world go round. Economics is where the power lies. Relationships, jobs, religion, politics, they are all about economics. Economics is driven by personal self interest to thrive. When you can see the world from that premise, it all starts to make more sense.
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 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.
There is no doubt that we can find better, more environmentally friendly ways of living. But as the carbon debate continues, I suspect that people will start to see how ridiculous a notion it is, and quite how brainwashed they have become by those who stand to gain from its continuation.
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.
[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003
About the Author:
Andrew Goodman is a freelance spiritual writer and esoterics teacher. He writes regularly for HappyHappyHappyNews.com, the resource on the net for positive upbeat news articles. Follow the link for alternative tips on how to ride out the recession.
0 comments:
Post a Comment