A convenient lie?
The global warming conspiracy
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (a film which helped to secure this failed presidential candidate a Nobel prize) waxes lyrical about global
warming and the fact that we, mankind, are responsible. Worldwide policies to reduce our dreaded carbon footprints see massive taxation
of its populous and strict controls over developing countries. The subject has become the crown of the politically motivated environmental
movement and sees over US$45 trillion poured into researching this potentially catastrophic problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) claims to represent 2.500 of the world’s “top scientists” who are all in total agreement that we must reduce greenhouse gases to
save the plant from the horrors of climate change and global warming. Yet could the data be wrong? Could the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2)
on world climate change be a myth?
By Tom Wilson
For the last 20 years or so we
have been force-fed the idea that
greenhouse gasses, especially
CO2, are responsible for the dramatic
climate changes we are told
the earth is experiencing. The
deserts are getting bigger, the ice
caps are melting, the sea is rising
and an air of impending doom
presides. Man with his insatiable
appetite for fossil fuels and
sweet smelling armpits is stamping
a deadly carbon footprint on
the planet that, if left unchecked,
will be the death of us all.
The party line has become: “We
must reduce greenhouse gases to
save the planet,” but there is an
accusation that, far from being an
unbiased scientific organisation,
in fact the IPCC is exactly the opposite,
namely biased and politically
motivated. Another side
to the debate has been revealed
that seems to be subject to active
suppression by global warming
scaremongers worldwide for in
this argument we see a very natural
cycle of climate change that
the earth has been experiencing
for millions of years and that a
completely different cause than
C02 levels is apparently responsible
for global climate variations .
If you saw the film An Inconvenient
Truth you will have seen
Al Gore as he is dramatically lifted
high above the audience following
the line of increasing
temperature that, shock horror,
ascends in line with upsurge CO2,
rising into the realms of impending
Armageddon. CO2 is promoted
as the bad guy of the greenhouse
gasses and humankind
as the naughty careless child responsible
for spoiling our planet.
It is our fault the glaciers are
melting and the polar bears are
dying and our punishment will
be worse than early to bed or no
computer or television time, our
punishment is the end of life, as
we know it!
Guilty of what?
Remember how you felt as a
child? When your parents accused
you of something of which
you were innocent and in which
you had no part? When the harsh
spotlight of blame shone on your
angelic face and you pleaded your
innocence to deaf unsympathetic
ears? Well, it seems that modern
science and the media may have
been a little harsh on mankind
with accusations raining down on
a guilt-wracked public of being
the cause for global warming. It
seems that perhaps we have been
a little misled, that the wool has
been fully pulled over our eyes
and we are being treated like a
mushroom (kept in the dark and
fed rubbish). Can this be? Could
government, science and the corporate
giant be lying to us about
global warming? Ask yourself the
question: Is such a thing possible?
Have we been lied to before?
CO2 is the villain, according to
many, a two-lettered, one-digit
devil that insidiously builds up
in the fragile layer of atmosphere
around us and threatens life as we
know it, promising to cook us in
our own selfish juices. But other
schools of thought exist, one of
which absolves mankind and lays
the blame solely at the feet of the
ever present, ever burning light
of our lives, the sun.
Does it really seem so outrageous
and unlikely that the largest,
hottest, most volatile body
in our galaxy may in fact influence,
however slightly or greatly,
the temperature of the planet
that we reside on? It does sound
plausible, doesn’t it? CO2 in fact
makes up just 0,03 per cent of our
atmosphere, and of that we, mankind,
are guilty of providing only
3 per cent. That’s right, 3 per cent
of 0,03 per cent!
Doing the sums
Could it be the maths for global
warming just doesn’t add
up? The contrary opinion to global
warming contends that the
earth’s temperature is regulated
to a great extent by cloud formation
and that clouds are formed
when water vapour evaporates,
rises and encounters cosmic rays
(the same rays that form the aurora
borealis). This encounter
results in the forming of droplets
and the droplets make up the
clouds. When the sun’s activity
increases, marked by the increase
in sunspots activity, solar wind is
formed that blows towards earth
and basically blows away the cosmic
rays thus limiting cloud formation.
Less clouds, more heat.
We are currently experiencing
a cycle that is seeing more sunspots
activity but this cycle has
been fluctuating normally for
millions of years. Apparently, we
are indeed, historically, in rather
a calm time in the sun’s ups
and downs, although in the short
term the sunspot activity happened
little more than, say, 100
years ago.
This is a perfectly normal cycle
and our earth has gone through
many of these cycles. It is thought
that every 500 years or so we experience
a shift in climate and all
changes are dependent on the activity
of the sun. It is thought that
it was much warmer in the 1400s
than it is now and that was before
the onset of the industrial
revolution.
Industrial effect?
This is not to say that industry is
not having catastrophic effects on
our environment by way of pollutants,
BUT it does seem that the
push to blame the greenhouse effect
and, therefore, mankind for
global warming could, in fact, be
false. It may be argued that, as is
often the case, the few who benefit
from this scare tactic are diverting
funds away from true environmental
issues and human
needs such as poverty, the reduction
of damaging pollutants and
development of third world populations.
It is unfortunately true
that this scam, if scam it is, could
be seen as yet another damming
indictment on our governments
and powers that be to gain yet
more control and line ever deeper
pockets.
When you look at the facts you
may conclude that it is more likely
that the sun and not CO2 is responsible
for the fluctuations in
temperature on the surface of the
planet. The effect of rising CO2 in
the atmosphere actually promotes
and increases plant growth.
You may have seen or heard
about the so-called hockey stick
graph that shows the correlation
of CO2 increase in the atmosphere
and its spike in the 20th
century matching an unprecedented
increase in global temperature.
This graph was based on a
programme produced by a previously
largely unknown scientist
named Michael Mann who
came under fire, but fights back
tenaciously, from sceptics who
claimed that it was found that the
complicated algorithm used within
the programme meant that almost
any data input would result
in the hockey stick shape. Mann’s
chart completely wipes out evidence
of the temperature increase
of the 1400s but yet has been the
flag waved by the likes of Al Gore
ever since. The sceptics maintain
that this data is flawed, but
these omissions in the graph are
put down to being regional rather
than global phenomena. >
“There are, as always, questions about particular
details. But those who suggest that the marked
changes in climate patterns are not associated
with human activities (as some still do) are
isomorphic with those who suggest that cigarette
smoking is not the major cause of lung cancer (as
some still do).”
Lord Robert May, whilst president of the Royal Society, UK.
photo xymonau
get thinking
Money, money, money
Money and power, as always, could be seen to be at the root of this possibly massive deception. Research grants into this concept of global warming seem only to be awarded to those out to prove CO2 as the cause. This began, it seems, for several reasons: one was that the coal industry sector held many of the world governments to ransom in the late 1970s and early 80s – Margaret Thatcher was seen as especially keen to break the back of powerful unions and promote nuclear power in coal’s place – and what better way than to make fossil fuels the bane of the planet?
Secondly, the issue of global warming also helps to keep poorer countries poor. A direct link can be seen in a country’s ability to produce power and its ability to develop. Therefore, with restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and the strict reduction of CO2 emissions levied at third world countries and laid down in the Kyoto agreement this has the effect of limiting the development of third world countries, desired or not. Also taxes are levied on the majority of us and, remember, there is US$45 trillion to be had. A mighty big incentive for a myth of this nature to continue, for, after all, if it turned out that it is the sun and natural cycles that are responsible for global temperature fluctuations, then the huge industry that has grown up around global warming would crumble and government would have to turn its resources and time to real environmental and social problems. There would be a lot of egg on a lot of faces and perhaps a hugely annoyed populous to boot.
Another interesting fact is that the global warming issues came about just as one of the world’s largest and most influential corporations was about to lose its patent on Freon (CFCs), a gas that was used in most refrigeration units and aerosols. This loss of patent meant that anyone could use the gas and that the corporation would lose much of its revenue, so as the patent ran out so the gas magically became illegal, until, low and behold, the corporation developed an “eco friendly gas” with, you guessed it, a nice new patent. If it was proven that Freon actually doesn’t harm the atmosphere to any great extent, there would have been little use for a new gas, and therefore, no new patent, leaving the poor old corporation sorely out of pocket.
Despite all the cleverly edited data and pictures in films like An Inconvenient Truth it seems that the facts simply do not support the position that CO2 has anything to do with global warming and the worry is that this misleading data is being used against the masses.
There is currently a petition signed by 17.000 scientists, politicians and academics denouncing the current line on global warming as a farce, but on the other hand, according to the New Scientist, there are tens of thousands who consent to the IPCC position. Al Gore perhaps jumped on the wrong bandwagon when he made An Inconvenient Truth (did you know, according to him, he also invented the internet!) and although compelling viewing, the facts may simply be wrong. There are even calls from many in the scientific community to strip him of the Nobel Prize. To date he has refused to debate the issue with others preferring to hide steadfastly behind his seemingly false rhetoric.
Hot and cold
In the 1970s the big scare on everyone’s lips was a global freeze now it’s a global warming but if, as the data suggests, we have little to do with this process (although a lot to do with a more serious issue related to the burning of fossil fuels, namely pollution), we should perhaps be diverting the massive funds dedicated to this white elephant and instead put that money to better use cleaning the planet and advancing its entire population, as well as focusing on a more realistic approach to the inevitable swings and roundabouts of natural climate fluctuations. It seems such a common theme that we are duped by questionable media and governmental reports based on nothing more than a clever twisting of data to suit the untrustworthy.
This convenient lie makes money and power and the inconvenient truth is that we are being fed lie, after lie, after lie. A bitter pill to swallow.
Mankind is responsible for many problems on the planet but if we are to address them we must stop wasting time and money on something that is not our fault or in our power to change and instead start to focus on what we can fix like the duplicitous nature of our governments and media for a start. Is it time for us to demand that the inconvenient truth simply becomes the truth?
