Before the dawn of man, there was an indisputable history of climate change. Some of which were dramatic climatic shifts: horrendous storms, numerous ice ages, temperature extremes, huge masses of formerly fertile land converted to desert. All this is part of the rich and continuing tapestry of our planet Earth’s climate. The important point is that climate change exists without any influence of man whatsoever, and was around long before even the existence of life itself. Indeed mankind owes its very existence directly to the Earth’s episodes of climate change.
Ironically much of the modern countryside (what’s left of it) is on the whole a manmade construction that in many ways can be superior to wild unrestrained growth. But it is the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution that really provided a quantum leap in mankind’s impact on the planet. Following a period of largely agricultural economy, the industrial revolution originated in Britain in the late 19th Century. This saw a dramatic expansion of manmade activity, with the steam engine, railways, electricity generation, and factory production amongst many key factors leading to the current Western modern consumer led culture. This also vastly increased the amount of man-made pollutant waste products both on ground and in the air, accompanied by increasing population and urbanisation of much of the land.
By the 1970s much of the western world became increasingly urban, with concrete jungles and proliferation of manmade gadgets. Climate wise some scientists were predicting an imminent ‘Ice Age’, this was taken up by much of the media, and popular opinion was that the Earth was cooling. In fact within 20,000 years time was ‘the imminent’ projection. The point is that it can be very easy to get things dramatically wrong or misinterpreted for such a complex prediction; this is especially pertinent if this culminates in a drastic change in habits, which would with hindsight appear foolish – or worse it is quite possible that matters could be made inadvertently worse. There also appears to be a protest vogue, where certain groups of people continually protest about something. A bit of a stereotype, but such protesting individuals are more likely to come from a social science, arts, or unemployed background rather than followers of pure science in the traditional sense. The point is the postulation that man created CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions will result in global warming, is often portrayed as an indisputable scientific fact – it is not, many prominent scientists dispute this. A quick Google search of ‘List Scientists Opposing Global Warming’ will verify this.
The fear of a possible Ice Age has been replaced with a fear of global warming. The theory sounds plausible enough, pollutants put into the atmosphere create a greenhouse gas effect where heat can penetrate, but cannot so easily escape, creating an escalating temperature pattern. Al Gore in his famous documentary ‘ An Inconvenient Truth’ has basically taken it as read that it is an indisputable fact that man is causing irreversible climate change by emissions of CO2 gas, and has shown graphs showing the ‘irrefutable link’ between CO2 and increasing heat. The trouble is on closer examination, the charts show CO2 lagging behind the rising temperature; this tends to support rising heat being the cause of increased CO2 levels not the other way around.
It must be said at this juncture, that the author does not know for certain one way or the other the definitive impact excessive CO2 emissions have on the climate. Considering man is responsible for around 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions including water vapour, intuitively the amount appears to be minimal. The computer modelling which has been used to predict the effects of CO2 are not perfect and by no means conclusive that man created emissions will lead to cataclysmic global warming. The point is that on detailed scrutiny, this is not an exact science, and if life changing habits are the result of the global warming philosophy the science needs to provide precise reinforcement. It is quite possible to end up doing more damage through mistaken, albeit well meaning change in habits. An example is prioritising reducing CO2 emissions by burning corn and wheat products, rather than the chemically and more efficient life sustaining option of eating them!
CO2 emissions can be measured or at least fairly accurately estimated, and if it can be measured it can be taxed and utilised as a means of control. ‘Climate Change’ tax provides a perfect opportunity for governments to raise revenues; any dissenters are faced with the charge of ‘destroying the planet’. However, what if this is the ultimate con? An analogy are slimming products, there is an awful lot of money being made from them – but to lose weight surely should involve the lowering food consumption, which should mean lower bills to the slimmer. In similar manner reduction of CO2 emissions should really mean strategies for lowering costs; instead governments appear to target areas which do not significantly change behaviour but bring in much in the way of income and hence cost to the general public.
The current vogue in solely focussing on CO2 emissions to avert disastrous climate change is flawed in this author’s firm opinion. Notwithstanding that this strategy may be a waste of time, money and effort – or worse inherently wrong; there is a wider global view of mankind’s impact on planet Earth that appears to have taken second place in the current obsession on CO2 emissions. Pollution can take many forms, the planet’s population is increasing towards unsustainable levels, many resources are being wasted, and heritage both natural and manmade are being destroyed. This has coincided with western governments becoming ever more wasteful, bureaucratic and controlling, particularly in the UK and USA.
There is a real possibility that millions of people have been suckered into a climate change ideology albeit for all the right altruistic reasons; but have inadvertently ended up as pawns to be manipulated at will by profit driven corporations and controlling governments.
Click images to view larger picture, click on large image to view slide show.
Is Global Warming Climate Change The Ultimate Con?
There appears to be a current obsession with man made CO2 emissions allegedly causing global warming which will lead to a catastrophic world Climate Change. Is this simply a fraud, with people being conned and suckered?
Climate change has existed during the Earth's history without any influence of man whatsoever, and was around long before even the existence of life itself. Indeed mankind owes its very existence directly to the Earth’s episodes of climate change. The science supporting the postulation that manmade CO2 emissions will lead to global warming and hence disastrous climate change is not indisputable.
It is quite possible that mankind is being conned into a philosophy that may well be a waste of time, money, resources, and the possibility of doing more harm than good. Is this all simply a fraud for governments and large organisations to gain power and money, and is the ultimate con?
John D Henry BA BSc, Managing Director of DATALITE UK LTD
Picture Frames, Photography, & Gift Products at www.dluk.info