this is a sequel to the previous post
(please read the previous post before commenting on this)
Whoever does not agree with the IPCC consensus on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is called a “climate change denier” or “climate denier” by the global warming theorists.
The real question however might not be so much about what label we attach to our persuasion, but rather is there something we can do about climate change – what can be done about it? Which are the most effective solutions and actions to remedy the problem?
Independent scientific analysis and research, unbiased by sponsor’s interests or ideological intent (if such a thing ever exists), might produce “an inconvenient truth” for both the supporters and the deniers of “anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming”, because it will have to include and consider a plethora of other potential causes in the research, and it might come up with findings that are not only shattering the prevailing carbon dioxide thesis, but which are also very disturbing to anybody who thinks all is right.
Climate change is happening, that’s an undeniable fact, the deceit with the current thesis lies in the use of the term “global warming” as a synonym for “climate change”. We can consider every human caused disruption of natural climatic cycles as climate change, and a disturbance of such natural patterns usually shows effects in the climate of larger regions – with sometimes devastating consequences: Extended draughts, sudden floods, landslides and massive storms are the most obvious ramifications of such human interference with the fragile ecosystem.
Apart from greenhouse gases, which certainly can and do have an influence on weather patterns (once more: carbon dioxide is just one – a minor – greenhouse gas, there are other gases and noxious fumes that might play a more significant role in the process…), a further major impact on natural cycles is certainly created with the massive deforestation and desertification of our planet. Deforestation has gained momentum since the 1950s, but has certainly been happening over centuries and at a higher pace during the past two hundred years or so of modern industrialisation (world population around 1800 was an estimated 978 million people, in 2008 it reached over 6,7 billion).
Climate change cannot remain a dispute of energy politics alone as it affects the fundamentals of our existence: Water and Food. Without proper precipitation it will be impossible to grow anything. Water scarcity is a direct result from deforestation, as forests and trees are retaining water in the soil and regulate the microclimate through evaporation and condensation – cloud formation. The combined microclimates make the macroclimate with its rythms and cycles. A change in local surface temperature due to desertification has an impact on a supra regional phenomenon like an El Nino. Reforestation is not just about carbon sequestration or the “greener nicer look”, but about protecting the global climate, increasing production capacities and inhabitable space on our planet. It is about our survival.
Maybe the IPCC is wrong about global warming, but isn’t their agenda to drastically reduce CO2 emissions a noble one? No, say 100 scientists in an open letter to the United Nations: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”
Critics claim the IPCC agenda would hinder poor nations from developing, and energy restrictions envisioned by the IPCC would cause suffering. “My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short,” Christy said.
Denis G. Rancourt, professor of physics at the University of Ottawa opines: “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels, backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.”
Climate change has to be tackled by restoring ecoregions to their proper functioning. It’s a regional problem with supra regional impact and global expansion. Coordinated global efforts are absolutely essential to achieve sustainable results. It takes a multi layered approach encompassing introduction of environmental friendly technology, preservation, restoration.
Does the global warming theory serve as a distraction from the real pressing problems that need to be solved? Is it a scheme to further allocate resources to the wealthy, withdrawing them from the poor? In no way this must be allowed. Climate change concerns everyone. Availability of sufficient food, drinking water and energy for basic requirements for every citizen of this planet can and must be accomplished – it’s a human right. This is about just humanitarian considerations. This planet can sustain all and everyone if nature is helped back into an efficient and balanced state.
Are we heading for economy driven science or a science driven economy? is it really all profits that matter? Money is essential in creating solutions, but first a solution must solve a problem not necessarily yield immediate monetarial revenues. This is not just about solving the economic crisis or about profits for a few. If we just think short term gains, we will never manage to tackle the destruction of our environment. An emerging sustainable green economy which is not based on hype, but on need, can generate myriads of new job opportunities for everyone – not only for a priviledged few.
Is the global warming theory the modern opium of the people? Are deniers just disturbing an attractive scheme? Is the debate open to all sights and opinions? Or is the outcome predestined by the greed for profits from exploitation of cheap resources? Will there anything be left for our children? Will anything change for the better or are we just changing the name of the game?
global warming: a theory carbon dioxide: not a crucial factor in climate change (maybe a result?), useful and necessary for plant growth climate change: happening as widespread regional phenomena, supra regional impact, global appearance – plural: climate changes major causes of climate change: destruction of regulating natural factors: deforestation and desertification, drainage of swamps and wetlands, particle pollution from soot, smoke and dust (city smog) …others.
Another theory – which is directly linked to the energy issue – is the one about man-made global warming caused by carbon dioxide which is fostered by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Soon the United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Copenhagen from December 7th – 18th, where thinkers and speakers will pass another round of the climate change debate, discussing measures to alleviate the impacts of human generated carbon dioxide emissions. The theory of “man-made global warming” caused by such emissions from burning fossil fuels and from exhalation, is a controversial one. While climate change undeniably happens in many regions of the world with sudden and sometimes lasting cataclysmic events such as cyclons, drought or floods, it is not established, whether these changes show a general trend towards an increase in average global temperatures and if such changes are really caused by the human carbon footprint. Certain future trend analysis, which are based on computer models, show the possibility of a warming between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius until 2100, others warn from “faster, stronger and sooner climate change” and dire consequences while again others are expecting a preliminary cooling. John Cristy’s extensive temperature data set measured from satellites does not support a general warming trend, although it shows a measurable slight increase in surface temperature which is caused by human activity. To the layman it may seem that this debate is a clash of opinions based on fears, vague assumptions and projections rather than a scientific assessment based on observation and exact measurements – even the subjective experience of the kind “it’s getting warmer year by year” cannot easily be related to by individuals.
Manmade carbon dioxide is considered the main culprit in the mainstream climate discussion, held responsible for melting icecaps and glaciers, but many reputable scientists disagree with this theory (!). John Cristy, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science and lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC, clearly stated in an interview with National Public Radio: “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way” and he confirmed that he was “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”
There are basically two main fractions engaged in the debate of global warming: the proponents of the “official” version insisting the cause of global warming to be man-made, and the ones that see global warming as an effect of normal fluctuations, like increased solar activity due to the sun’s 11 years activity cycle. The latter deny any significant role of carbon dioxide in the process. In fact some are convinced that dioxide levels always follow a temperature increase – not vice versa.
The content of carbon dioxide in the air today avarages around 387 ppm, which equals 0.0387 percent per volume. If this is to be reduced to 350 ppm as certain proponents of IPCC’s assessment suggest to be “ambitious but feasible”, you would actually reduce todays value just about 9.5% (read: just about one tenth of 0,04%) or in an absolute value 0,0037% per volume and it is very hard to believe that such a small reduction will have any significant ecological impact. (To make it a bit more visual for non mathematicians: Imagine you have a cube of air one meter high, one meter wide, one meter deep. The CO2 will be a much smaller cube inside this big cube, measuring roughly 7.29 cm each side – maybe comparable to the volume of a new fluffy tennis ball. If you want to reduce it to the target volume of 350 ppm as suggested, you would have to schrink this small body just about 2.4 millimeters to 7.05 cm sidelength – to stay with the illustration of the tennis ball it was as if you shaved it bald – so that it will now have a slightly smaller diameter. Or to get a grip you can use a measuring tape and look up the values.).
Carbon dioxide concentration in the air fluctuates with seasons, as the photosynthesis – conversion of CO2 into plant sugars (carbohydrates, starch) and manufacturing of oxygen – of vegetation is involved in the carbon cycle: In spring and summer the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air on the northern hemisphere is lower when plants grow and it increases in falls and winter when plants cease this conversion, decay and decompose. Carbon dioxide’s specific weight is about 1.5 more than the one of air.That’s why carbon dioxide is gathering near the ground or in depressions and hardly rises up to the upper atmosphere, where it is said to cause the “greenhouse effect”. You can try this out by filling a balloon with CO2 – it won’t rise…
Apropos ballooning: CO2 is said to be “ballooning” from it’s origin in regions with a high man-made output to regions less densly populated and affecting them most, like for example the indian ocean and the sahel zone. But if you compare the CO2 atmospheric concentration map with a NASA image depicting the desert areas of the world, you will find an astonishing match.
Map showing elevated carbon dioxide levels
Nasa image showing the deserts of the world
This might be considered a valid indication, that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations mainly exist in areas without much active vegetation and it could be concluded that simple measures like reforesting deserted areas could easily counteract such concentrations. Eritrea – a small underdeveloped country in the Sahel belt – meets the challenges of climate change by alleviating drought through reforestation and proofs such measures to be highly effective.
But while such simple and practical methods like reforestation are showing very promising results in solving the problem of climate change for entire regions, the theorists – among them a massive portion of the so called scientific community, myriad of political and economical exponents and even a greater number of environmentalists – seem to have lost themselves in an ideological haze, proclaiming the danger and toxicity of carbon dioxide and suggesting all kind of financial, administrative and technological hotchpotch to defend human civilisation from drowning in rising sealevels.
One thing that surprises me most about the entire debate is the high emphasis on CO2 as the almost exclusive cause for climate change. We daily hear and read just carbon. And carbon has received such a negative connotation through this entire debate that we all slowly turn into carbofobics. The air you exhale is saturated with 4 % per volume of carbon dioxide. There exist some scientific research that suggest carbon dioxide to be unhealthy at a concentration of 0,5 % (the concentration in a bottle of Pepsi) or dangerous to animal life at 5% per Volume (if inhaled over extended periods). As I remember from attending chemistry lessons some years back at highschool carbon dioxide is non toxic, but at the most an irritant, with the potential to suffocate you, if you happen to sit in a pit without proper ventilation. Carbon is one of the main building blocks of all living organisms – your body consists of 18% Carbon – and carbon dioxide is a vital component in the air, as there would be no photosynthesis – no plantlife – without it.
And carbon dioxide is just one of the known “greenhouse” gases. There are many other gases and factors that influence the global climate: Water vapour (atmospheric content + 1%) and clouds are definitely ranking much higher in their influence retaining solar heat within our atmosphere. And methane, a gas which due to its leight weight easily rises into the higher atmosphere where it remains active for about 8.5 years before it oxidises into carbon dioxide and which also experienced a massive increase in its atmospheric occurrence over the last 200 years due to human influence, mainly from waste deposited in landfills and breeding cattle, can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. But it seems hardly to get mentioned in the theory. Nobody ever says: “stop eating meat from mass animal production, because such behavior is causing global warming.” Nor is there hardly any mention of airtravel as possible source of carbon dioxide abundance in the upper atmosphere although airplanes expell this gas in much higher altitude (and much higher quantities) than let’s say a car. And finally: Particle pollutants like grime and dust contribute their fair share to atmospheric pollution and its influence on solar radiation.
Remains the question: is the entire global warming theory just a hoax? Is there any scientific evidence for man-made global warming or are we dealing with a lot of speculation, hype and fear mongering? Are we debating a believe system and produce a lot of hot carbon saturated air while debating (which would further augment global warming according to the theory)? Do we base a newly emerging green economy on make-believe? Why? We will surely come back to this questions at a later point.
No doubt we have all reason to abolish polluting practice and strive for ecological solutions – not because we need a new color scheme for our economy, but because we need to take care of our very life foundation and pass on a tidy planet to future generations. I fear the huge amounts of highly toxic waste that are continuosly dumped into our environment are posing a much higher threat to the survival of any living species (human included) on this planet and give much more reason to worry, than slightly elevated levels of carbon dioxide. And remember: to reduce latter a simple remedy would do: stop slashing forests and plant more trees. Scientific methods do not have to be complicated in order to be effective (Neither does an intelligent approach need to be sanctioned by climate “scientists” to make a viable solution!).
After my last post I came along an article on Wikipedia and I realised that I have to rectify my sloppy inaccurate description of the circumstances of Stanley Meyer’s passing. Let me correct this statement by citing from Wikipedia about Stanley Meyer’s death:
“Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.” (end of quote)
“Conspiracy Theorist” is an expression often found in debates on public discussion sites on the internet or in mainstream press media articles and labels people who believe in the existence of a small elitist group of very wealthy individuals, who operate through a sophisticated and interlaced network of organisations (commercial, political, philanthropic and ideological) and that these individuals and organisations followed a hidden agenda to proactively and effectively control society through politics, economy and events and by influencing public opinion and behavior with the help of the mainstream mass media, which they are believed to own entirely.
Conspiracy theorist often suspect an untold version to the official story or a concealed truth behind a certain event. For example the invasion of Irak is considered by conspiracy theorists to be motivated by the desire to get access to the Iraqi oil fields and that the 9/11 event had been a false flag operation executed by agencies of the PTB (powers that be) to initiate and justify such an invasion, while the official version targeted Saddam’s assumed WMD arsenal and his suspected link to Al Quaeda – a terrorist organisation lead by Osama Bin Laden which is believed to have attacked America on 9/11 – and was motivated entirely by the need to protect democracy and world security.
Conspiracy theorists also believe that any invention or discovery by an individual or by an independent organisation, that would jeopardize vested interests (another theory), would be suppressed by PTB and it’s agencies and that PTB is applying various tactics (such as blackmail, ridicule, threats, defamation, coercion, murder etc.) to silence dissenting subjects. Further Conspiracy theorists believe that many mainstream scientists and faculties as well as designated public relations agencies, ghostwriters and specialised journalists are directly or indirectly hired and paid by PTB or its agencies for the purpose of publicly disapproving of such potentially competing inventions and developments by stirring controversy, by labelling such inventions and discoveries with attributes of disapproving character, e.g. “junk science”, “pseudo science”, “snake oil” etc. or by repetitive citation of certain established scientific dogmata (such as the laws of thermodynamics) in an attempt to disprove feasibility and to disencourage further follow up.
One can find conspiracy theorists in almost any field where massive profits are realised by a relatively small group of people or by very influential organisations or by a syndication – official or presumed clandestine – of such organisations, and where underlying structures and activities for the procurement of such profits could be considered exclusive or monopolistic in their nature.