The author of said article must have lost it to the same extent as the politicians have when indulging in their favorite pasttime. I especially liked the third sentence of the article: “But while the sceptics continue to pick over the bones of Copenhagen, the officials behind the scenes have been getting on with the process and it looks like eventually they are making progress”. Yes, the politicians act behind the scenes, completely ignoring truth and reality and push on with “the process” of saving their back’s lower end instead of the planet.
The article has nothing much to offer apart from some buoyancy based on wishful thinking and I believe, in this it resembles “the process” of the few that intend to shuffle tax money – which is not their money – into a bankrupt economy – wanted to say into their pockets – by promoting a hoax. Insofar the article is even honest, as it admits the 100 billions annually will most probably come from public funding (your tax-bill), taxes on carbon intensive activities like aviation (you won’t go on vacation anymore by flight – you cannot afford it) and loans (great, let’s print some more money – we save the economy with more debt…).
“All countries have agreed” to save the rainforests and now “they just need to agree the best way to fund rainforest nations and ensure deforestation is not happening” – great! But have I missed out on something? Well never mind, this is a sound idea – just use the funds to balance their debt towards the rich nations, so they don’t have to cut trees to pay their bill with the proceedings.
All is so simple. Why cannot everyone see it? Suddenly I see it very clearly – this is the solution: “Also the UN has commissioned two papers on what has been promised so far that will enable fair comparisons between different countries for the first time. This could force countries that are not pulling their weight to act.” Yes, force them – sh.t on democracy – we need the term democracy anyway only to cover our hypocrisy, otherwise it is of no use. We go and bomb some other nations, kill their people (collateral damage, you know) and whoever does not want to play our game is forced by some decree on some paper that nobody has ever ratified. United Nations – unite!
“The US refuses to be part of any global agreement until developing nations like China also agree to cut emissions. However China will not sign up to anything that limits economic growth and insist the US makes deep cuts first. It seemed the two superpowers could stop the world reaching agreement but both sides are softening their stance.” Pardon me – what? Now…China developing nation or superpower? Well the US is certainly a developing nation – who isn’t with a broken economy, exploding unemployment rates, homeless citizens and a dozen trillions of debts. But their president is busy saving the planet right now and will save the nation maybe thereafter.
I have (what I think are) some really good suggestions for the people, who will still fly in their governmental airplanes, even long after Joe the plumber cannot afford flying anymore:
1. If you want to do something useful, get yourself a pair of rubber boots and go help cleaning up the oil spill (BP is said to have bought the search term ‘oil spill’ to disperse the overspilling rage – dispersants seem to be part of their business…).
2. when you finished there – or maybe even better before you leave for the gulf – make some peace in the world by calling your boys back from places where they are lost and have nothing lost, where they only experience and create tremendous suffering (they d’rather help you in the cleanup).
3. get some funding together to fund research for alternative sources of energy – could be permanent magnet motors, cold fusion, hydrogen technology or anything else, that frees us from oil and from CO2 (and from spills and nukes and stupid taxes). Hey this is helping the economy, it will create jobs – and it doesn’t even cost a fraction of what you want to spend on the hoax. If you feel like spending some more though, put it into reforestation programs. Trees are beautiful and help cooling the planet – and they thrive on carbon dioxide.
4. retire and feel good about yourself and be cheerful, because you did something that really helped the planet and the people.
Al Gore at the inauguration of his latest pet project, the Climate Change Memorial, said that he was glad to be out of the carbon swindle, because it was getting too much of a burden on his conscience and that he had started to suffer from sleeping disorders and could not even enjoy lazing around at the pool of his splendid mansion anymore.
“See, I had tremendous success in creating the biggest hoax ever – even I myself was surprised that everyone bought it. But then at some point, I started to realize how harmful it really was, but by that time I was already completely drawn in. This created enormous tension for me and I just wanted to get out” and he continued pointing towards his pet icebear “he really helped me to regain my mental balance. Together we went for long walks in nature and this somehow made me aware, that it is not all just money and power – there is more to life.”
Al Gore has since worked for building the Climate Change Memorial in his spare time. “I want to do something for the people. See, this.. [carbon swindle] has made me tremendously rich – now it’s all about giving back”.
Al Gore proudly presents his latest pet project - the Climate Change Memorial
Once more climate change, before I leave the issue and the debate to itself (for the time being). I am quite positively surprised to see mainstream media
suddenly opening up to discussions that have long been conducted in “underground” publications and forums on the net. Articles openly criticising and disclosing the various agendas of the dumbing down and enslaving globalist politics are suddenly appearing in newspapers and magazines that until recently toed the official (sanctioned) line.
(Telegraph.co.uk is the online version of the newspaper The Daily Telegraph. It includes the articles from the print additions of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph as well as web-only content such as breaking news, features, picture galleries and blogs. It was named UK Consumer Website of the Year in 2007 and 2009 by the Association of Online Publishers.
The Daily Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers after being bought from Hollston Inc. Amidst the unraveling of the takeover Sir David Barclay suggested that The Daily Telegraph might in the future no longer be the “house newspaper” of the Conservatives. In an interview with The Guardian he said, “Where the government are right we shall support them.” [Source Wikipedia]).
Why then this entire story? What is the idea behind it? Please watch the following sequence from the Movie “The Obama Deception” to get a basic understanding of the idea.
If you go around the globe, you find no rise (in sea levels) anywhere.
But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no
death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a
sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a
temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial
in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore
they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is,
that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer
Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers
are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly
not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion
of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic
may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already
floating, and it has no effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro,
which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because
of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a
rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that
came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down
the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat;
heat melts the ice, and there’s no more snow to generate the
ice. So it’s a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature.
It’s the misbehavior of the people around the mountain.
So again, it’s like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation,
that’s the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it’s the
(excerpt from an Interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner by Gregory Murphy for EIR on June 6, published under the title “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud” on June 22, 2007. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. You can download the entire Interview here).
The only thing that remains to worry about is the fact, that many now may think that “if there is no manmade global warming, then there is no problem”. But climate change is real and much of it is manmade! It’s not caused by CO2, but by deforestation through overexploitation and a lack of re-afforestation. Please read my recent posts for further illustration. The probably biggest threat humanity faces is water scarcity! No water – no Food! It’s that simple. Fortunately many of the emerging countries (like India) are becoming increasingly aware of this fact (through experience) and have started massive reforestation programmes. But much more needs to be done and on an international level. Existing forests need to be protected and new forests need to be grown. There is ample space in the deserts and on deserted wastelands of this earth to plant trees.
The “green new deal” it is called. The promising miracle cure for the pressing problems resulting from the crisis triple pack: melting markets, melting ice caps and melting oil inventories. Killing three birds with one stone!
The world goes electric with wind- and solarpower from huge production sites somewhere in the desert or offshore. America is on the search for private enterprises as investing contractors for their future smart electricity grid, just when GMs Chevrolet Volt is about to be released to the road by 2010; the British contemplate fundraising through issuance of carbon bonds to the public for their fancied offshore windfarms and the German Government puts €170 mllions into research for developing their own batteries for the new generation of electric cars, of which one million are expected to cruise on Germany’s roads by 2020. “It is important that we couple a hopefully decreasing dependency on oil imports with not suddenly becoming dependent on battery imports,” said the German Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.
“Energy independence” is an argument often used by the political advocates of the new green deal. But then the vision of Desertec’s massive solar and wind power plant in the North African and Middle Eastern desert with connecting wires to the point of use in central Europe seems to violate just this idea. There exists a considerable vulnerability of transcontinental cables, poles and wires to blackmail or sabotage – it would not really take much to effectively switch off the lights on Europe’s bedside tables…
Neither should we cherish an illusion of a soon to come carbon free world, as of course as long as there is a drop of oil to be pumped and sold, it will be fed into the present system – probably at rapidly increasing prices – nobody will want to give away something for free. Therefore the talk is about cutting emissions, capitalizing emissions and trading emissions – and not about abolishing bad practice. “50% – 85% by 2050” is the latest bargain that the Prince of Wales proposes to the world leaders on the Copenhagen Summit – he therefore has enlisted the help of 500 leading international companies from more than 50 countries. The bill will have to be settled by the consumers and by the nations that cannot afford the exorbitant investments in order to go green – the developing countries. “Take it from the poor and give it to the rich” is obviously a rule that will persist and not undergo change in the wake of establishing the new (refurbished) green (with pink glasses) deal (steal). Of course the rich nations and their energy corporations will generously extend their help to destitute nations in building the necessary infrastructure – just like an empathetic vampire will offer you gladly to check your pulse.
There is quite a haste to get all the treaties and legislations aligned (somehow reminds of the push during US Senate bailout negotiations). No wonder as even the Prince of Wales insists that after 84 months the atmospheric carbon levels will reach the height of irreversible damage – the point of no return (hope he did the math and checked the consistency with his a.m. proposal)! Everyone seems to agree: we need to cut emissions, we need green energy, we need jobs, we need markets, we need investing capital …We need to close the loop: investments will create jobs, jobs will create income; income will allow to consume what is produced. This time though it’s ‘low carb’ consumerism that will make everyone happy – especially the energy giants that have succesfully managed to remain BIG (monopolistic) and at the same time exchange their dirty fossil for a clean electric cash cow.
Unfortunately this beautiful vivid dream is slightly clouded by certain circumstances that lie outside the control of the vision impaired visionaries of wired power: first there is some kind of internal competition going on between the oilies and the nukies: the nuclear industry wants its share of the cake and insists that – apart from the waste problem that still needs solving – nuclear power is a safe, sustainable and green source of energy and should be promoted along with wind and solar schemes. Their strong lobby is not likely to give in easily in setting up the legal frameworks and distribution models unless they are appropriately allowing for increased future nuclear power generation. Secondly there is the big question mark associated with the provenience of funds for financing the whole green new deal: unfortunately much of the cash needed has just evaporated recently and it is highly unlikely that private bodies will go after novel, unproven and risky ventures with their remaining assets. Especially Britains envisioned model of financing their investments in the amount of “tens of billions of Pounds” through issuance of public bonds will have to pass the reality check. The UK government will have to prove their trustworthiness in handling public money after the recent turmoil over wasted taxpayers money. The third major obstacle to be overcome is more of a technical nature: While it is feasible to produce batteries and cars with electric motors it is not absolutely clear, how to bring the power from the wall socket to the car. If you have a house with an own parking lot or a garage you will just need an extension cord. But what if you happen to park somewhere in the street? (And how about aircrafts – are they going to be electric too?)
How sincere is this entire plan, how realistic is this plan, and – how fast can this plan be implemented and show results? Will this plan save our climate, our planet and our selves? I fear not. Although it undeniably is a very creative (‘clever’ would be the appropriate term) scheme, it still seems slightly out of touch with reality. And this is the dangerous thing about it. I am not at all opposed to change and new inventive strategies to make this world a better place. I am not even opposed to measure carbon emissions as a means to monitor and sanction pollution – but it should be carbon MONOXIDE (next to sulfur and nitrogen compounds and other toxic fumes) in order to get a true picture of manmade pollution (which by the way does not only consist of air pollution – think about the dumping of toxic wastes into the oceans or the contamination of soil with all kind of poisonous chemicals). And the measures to go green and tune into the rythms of nature should not stop there. This is just the beginning: if humanity (including the economic, political, scientific and environmental experts) is truly interested in safeguarding the planet and its inhabiting species – ours included – then there is much much more to do than to talk, patch, offset, cap and trade. We need to honestly assess our present situation on a profound level, diagnose and admit systemic weaknesses and behavioral failures, determine suitable remedies and solutions and then act on the base of these findings. In order to do so, we might need to let go of selfish economic interests and allocate resources to an independent scientific body that deserves this designation. Then we will need to open up towards novel ideas and approaches irrespective of the cost (the loss) for established (mal)practice. And finally we will need to opt for best practice, cooperation and solidarity to rebuild a truly sustainable world which operates in harmony with nature and aims at the common welfare of the entire human race.
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!).