KEYWORDS:climate, climate change, emissions, CO2, global warming, science, scientific, natur, natural, government, industry, money
CREATIVE COMMONS: Some rights reserved. Distribution: Non - commercial, attrib, no derivs, All reproductions should be credited to Boggart Blog and linked to "http://www.greenteethmm.com/"
I've been campaigning on and off for over thirty years about Climate Change but the more I read of schemes being hatched by governments, academics and commercial interests to control CO2 emissions the more I am inclined towards.the p.o.v... of climate change sceptics. Now let's be very clear here, I have no sympathy for climate change deniers although to identify them with Holocaust deniers as the Politically Correct Thought Police would is just as insane as their denial that changes are taking place in the earth's ecosystem.
What I am sceptical about is the attitude of the "climate change science" lobby. I have said many times, mostly in questioning the absolute certainties of medical science, that science is about what we know, it fails miserably when people try to extrapolate that knowledge to predict what will happen in the future.
At the moment most of the climate change science is about measuring the CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) content of air in parts per million or the melt rate of glaciers. Meanwhile among government officers and academics there is a great kerfuffle about forcing us to reduce out "carbon footprint" and finding sustainable sources of energy which will enable us to generate the electricity developed nations need to maintain their standard of living without burning more fossil fuels.
Scientists, cocooned in their University Ivory Towers have little contact with reality. Thus their schemes are at best impractical and at worst just plain whacky. Currently the fashionable method for providing clean energy is by erecting wind turbines. Now the case against these is very strong and very simple: What happens when the wind does not blow or blows insufficiently or too strongly or gusts at varying speeds because turbines need to run at a constant speed to be efficient? The case for wind turbines is the scientists and academics cannot come up with anything else, they are very visible so politicians are seen to be doing something about the problem and the companies that make and operate them, which are owned by international conglomerates, hedge funds and shadowy figures in the world of international finance can see easy profits in them.
Wind power is a scam.
An even bigger scam is carbon trading or carbon offsets. Governments will set up an international market in which every human being has a carbon allowance. People poor countries will be able to sell some of their carbon allowance, through an agency of course, to people in rich countries who are likely to overrun their carbon allowance. It is very like the international market in debt, the collapse of which caused the financial meltdown.
Then there are the crazy new technologies that aim to tinker with weather systems by spraying fine particles into the upper atmosphere, seeding clouds, covering deserts with mirrors and all sorts of other tricks that may not work and could have disastrous and entirely unpredicted consequences.
In my opinion The "climate change scientists", high tech industries and governments are barking up the wrong tree. 300 years ago here in England (blame us evil Brits again) Abraham Darby fired up the first modern blast furnace. This made the smelting of industrial quantities of iron ore possible and, it's generally accepted, kicked off the industrial revolution. Within decades factories had sprung up everywhere belching coal smoke from their inefficient (by modern standards) furnaces to the atmosphere. Homes too, in the new industrial towns burned coal.
As industrialisation spread around Europe and to America, Australia, Japan and other parts of the world smoke pollution gathered pace. Now with three hundred years momentum behind it, like the Titanic it is not going to be turned around quickly.
Added to that the earth is in a natural warming cycle and we widen the picture. This is bigger than anyone imagines. The process is unstoppable. There is a lot of reliable evidence we have passed tipping point, the permafrost in those vast tundras of Northern Canada, Alaska and Northern Russia is thawing, releasing vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. When we look at the scale of the problems it is clear putting mirrors in the desert to reflect back sunlight, seeding clouds and fitting carbon capture to power station is like handing someone a band aid when they have had a limb shot off.
What we do know however is that as carbon pollution slowed from the 1950s through to the 1980s due to various clean air policies and car emissions control measures, processes attributed to global warming accelerated.
James Lovelock, the originator of Gaia theory recently wrote that our efforts to halt or reverse climate change were pointless, the ecosystem is too big and we are aware of only a small number of the interactions going on (El Nino in the Pacific causing the lousy summer we just had in Britain for example) to be able to predict the effects of scientists' attempts to tinker with the climate.
Lovelock's original theory thirty years ago suggests that the earth is constantly changing and the interactions of various systems including some of those mentioned are too subtle and too far reaching to be measured with any accuracy. Yet what can science offer if it cannot take measurements and collate data. Modern academic science looks at problems from a very narrow perspective and this leads to experiments that start from an answer and work back to find a question that fits and also serves an agenda. Academics deny this of course but if people go to the arctic to look for signs of the Arctic melting they are likely to find those signs just as if archaeologists go to the Holy Land to find proof of Biblical events they are predisposed to interpret what they find as proof of their case. One thing science cannot measure or explain in any meaningful way is human nature.
With the efforts of industry, commerce and academe proving so inadequate is there any hope? Yes there is. Thirty years ago when people like myself were waving placards and shouting slogans, when Lovelock was writing reasoned and perceptive cases to support his theory the political, business and academics were evading the issue or stroking their chins and muttering about insufficient evidence. Now in an era of control freakery they are exaggerating the dangers and using emotional blackmail to coerce us into compliance with their New World Order social engineering schemes.
There is little we can do about climate change, it is much too late. Had Abraham Darby known what we know now things might have been different. Unfortunately we cannot turn back the clock, all we can do is batten down the hatches and brace ourselves for for the changes that will come. Those who survive will be able to say "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger."