Whenever I raise this topic, or at least, voice my opinion on it, and it is an opinion, because since I am not a scientist, it can be nothing more than that, I encounter vociferous, even aggressive opposition.
I am speaking here of the oh-so-sensitive subject of climate change. Let me put my cards on the table from the get-go - I am a climate change denialist. Not a sceptic, because a sceptic is still open to being convinced otherwise. I am not. I am a denialist.
The phenomenon of climate change is nothing new. For over a century now, we have been bombarded with predictions of impending doom because of rapid climate change, which threatens the world’s capability to produce food or coastal cities and low-lying islands being inundated by deluges of unprecedented proportions due to rising sea levels brought about by global warming. An article on the website global research,www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16507 spells out the different eras in which scientists, using the familiar methodology of tracking the movement of glaciers, have either predicted global warming or rapid cooling, which would have the same disastrous effects on human civilisation.
Since 1895, reputable publications from the New York Times to Time and Life magazines to academic journals such as Nature, have been quoting the foremost experts in the fields of climatology, meteorology and other related disciplines, who have, predicted with a fair amount of certainty, based on their empirical studies of the ice caps and weather patterns, either global warming or cooling which promised to wreak havoc on the earth’s population in very short spaces of time. In all this time, over a century, nothing’s happened. In fact, things have tended to improve rather than degenerate. Every time over the last century when we have been promised doom and gloom, nothing’s happened. When nothing happens, the scientists alter their predictions, reinterpret the data and give us another apocalyptic vision. I contend that it is all about money, as everything is with human relations.
We all know that nothing will come of COP 15. This is the biggest talk shop after the UN General Assembly, where world leaders come together on a world stage for photo oppertunities and to grandstand for the sake of either political capital back home or to just be in the history books. Thousands of protestors are flown in, some from the poorest parts of the world, who could not afford a flight to Copenhagen if they worked their entire lives, for what reason? Ask yourself.
Why are these so-called ‘interest groups’ investing so much money in something they know will come to nothing? Who is funding them? Clearly there is a much deeper and wider agenda than just climate change here. How much CO2 is just staging this farce going to deposit in the atmosphere, what with all the private jets, jumbo jets, limousines and thousands of other greenhouse gas emitting devices which will be employed? Open your eyes. This is just another game being played with your sensibilities.
I, for one, am not biting.
I think Shakes has a point to an extent.
ReplyDeleteHe's right that global conference didnt rock any boat but I think there is a real urge to rock the boat. Shakes you might be a denialist to the global warming effect but how does one explain the change in temperatures, the dieing of the polar bears, the melting of the ice caps need I go on. The scientists might not be able to accuretly predict it but its definetly a reality. Question is what can we as a popilation do about it?
Carol
Climate change is an on-going reality. It is the state of the planet, whether humans exist or not. It has very little to do with us. This is all a big conspiracy to sell worthless carbon credits by making everyone feel guilty about climate change as if they were responsible for it. Solar technology, electric cars and a whole host of other green technologies have existed and been viable for decades. Why were they not implemented sooner? In fact, there is evidence that they were suppressed by the very same interests who are crying climate change now. Again I say, ¨open your eyes!¨
ReplyDeleteShakes…Interesting blog or conspiracy theory, either way thought provoking! I myself have my suspensions about the roll of the media in this here modern world. Negative news sells, its no secret as does it line the pockets of the Illuminati as you suggest.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming, environmental awareness or whatever name we choose to use is there to create awareness that we can’t go on living the way we do and treating the earth so badly. Well it’s creating awareness at least for people with an inkling of moral fiber running through their bodies and who value others lives as much as their own. I guess it boils down to that old adage that humans can’t comprehend the deaths of thousands, like the genocide in Somalia or the Tsunami but we mourn the death of a family member. So we can’t comprehend humans demise as a result of damaging our environment. Shakes you are so far left field, in fact you are not even on the field at all with your comment “It is the state of the planet, whether humans exist or not”. The planet will exist without us of that I have no doubt. It will chew us up and spit us out, and when it’s done it will start over again. Maybe its like getting older Shakes….We exercise and eat healthy to try and prolong our lives shouldn’t we be doing the same to mother earth? Jono
I have no orofile, so this is sent by Gareth Rees
ReplyDeleteInteresting thoughts on the matter I agree, but the scale of global change is unprecedented in the time span in which we have viewed it. It is due to the short span of our existence as individuals that we are often unable to view the magnitude of the effect that we have on our environment physically and to a lesser extent socially. To illustrate this Shakes you refer to the predictions of scientists for the last 100 years, which constitutes roughly one 60 millionth of the evolutionary span of our planet. Dating back the atmospheric constitution for the last few million years (through excavations in ancient ice sheets) it is clear to see that we have in fact far surpassed exponential increases in green house gasses ever since the dawning of the industrial age roughly 200 years ago. This has a number of downstream effects on not just climate but biodiversity generally. You see all living systems have an equilibrium that is imperative to maintain in order to successfully sustain itself. This system change absorb a certain amount of stress in either direction until the system can no longer buffer the equilibrium and the system enters an exponential change (Similarly to the titration of an acid, or the thermoregulation of mammals) Having said this the environmental system that we currently non-sustainably exist in is absorbing these changes for want of a better word until such time as it can no longer do so. At this point the systems equilibrium will rapidly deteriorate to a state of flux, which will inevitably be followed by another equilibrium (whether we can survive in the new equilibrium is still to be ascertained). This means that the deterioration of our environment will not occur on a linear scale where we will see the effects of climate and biodiversity change proportionally, no the system will continue to survive until it reaches critical change and will then very quickly deteriorate.
You also talk about the fact that changes in the environment have occurred many times in the past with several ice ages, floodings, polar shiftings, magnetic deviation and immense drought and global warming. This is true, but these events could be measured in tens of thousands of years, not over the course of one century which is an insignificant term evolutionarily. Thus we are speeding up the process undeniably, and stressing the system to the point of potential dis-equilibrium. Thus we are a catalyst for change environmentally without question, and this change is unsustainable. This WILL inevitably lead to climate change (not global warming, global change) that will occur at such a rate that species will not be able to adapt through natural selection. We will lose massive biodiversity, and thus functions performed by such biodiversity that were seemingly innocuous will not be performed affecting the food chain and the cycling of energy.
There is only one hope for humanity, and it is the same reason we are here right now… Technology and innovation. I doubt whether humanity will exist on earth in 500 years, and maybe even sooner than that. But with great impetus for change we can be very innovative as a species, and I am sure the next world that we make our own will be treated with a great deal of care. Having said this I have a carbon footprint second only to eskom
@ Gareth I think I did mention that I am not a scientist, so much of the scientific jargon you use is incomprehensible to me. So I will respond to you from a philosophical perspective. You do agree that the earth will come to an equilibrium even if we accelerate climate change to the extent that the conditions become temporarily irreperable by whatever efforts we may make. You also say the current rate of climate change is unsustainable. What is baffling is your admission that it has not been ascertained whether or not we will survive or even thrive in this new equilibrium yet you continue to extol the unsustainability of the situation. On the extinction of species, millions of species have become extinct throughout earth´s long history through no fault of our own. Therefore your biodiversity argument loses its impact. Also, scientists are not unanimous in they're support for the global warming pundits.
ReplyDelete@ Jono What does this have to do with morality? Where is the evidence that people have been killed by the effects of global warming? In fact, if you´ve been watching the news, recently people have been dying from extreme cold. Droughts and floods have been happening before the technologies that are being blamed for them now. We produce more food now than we have in all of history.
The point I´m trying to make here is that the earth is way more resilient than we give it credit for. Even if rapid climate change is taking place, and I´m not saying that it is, we don't know what the results will be. If it's unprecedented, then we have no yardstick by which we can say for certain what will happen. The best we can do is theorise. We must stop talking with certainty as though we´ve been through this before. The people who are responsible for this climate change, if it is happening, are trying to apportion blame to the masses. As I said, green technology has been available and viable for decades. Why is it only being embraced now by the same guys who are responsible for its suppression in the first place?