It is important to recognise the distinction between “global warming” – the natural phenomenon – and “Global Warming” with capital G and W – the belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are having a damaging effect on global climate which is going to be “bad” for the planet.
Global warming – the natural phenomenon – has been occurring interspersed with periods of global cooling ever since life developed on Earth 2 billion years ago. The global climate has never been constant but is always changing – it has to be either warming or cooling. That is unavoidable and there is no conceivable way in which man can stop these processes. Given the choice between warming and cooling, warming is definitely better. We do not want a premature ice age.
Man is a part of nature and if it were not for the effect that early bacteria had on the Earth’s atmosphere life as we know it would not exist today. Any effect that man has on the planet is equally a part of nature and results in the same processes influencing life on the planet.
Life has evolved on Earth through periods which were alternately much hotter and much cooler than now. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has also been increasing and decreasing over time. It is a natural component of the atmosphere and is essential for plants and algae to survive and grow.
The amount of carbon on the planet is constant – it is the same now as it was billions of years ago and it will remain the same for the foreseeable future. It is constantly being recycled by the planet. It is absorbed by trees and plants and some of it is stored within the Earth’s crust. This is then released when that part of the Earth’s crust is re-absorbed by the magma as the edge of a tectonic plate is pushed down towards the core. This carbon then reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is released through the volcano’s vents and eruptions.
There is so far no scientific evidence that man made emissions of carbon dioxide have any measurable effect on global climate. There are attempts to link carbon dioxide emissions with changes in the perceived climate, but remember that correlation is not causation, as any true scientist will tell you.
It is not possible to measure actual climate directly. We can only measure the weather and then use the data to arrive at a perceived climate. As we all know the weather depends on the direction of the wind amongst other things, so this process can only be a matter of opinion.
Quasi-religion
Global Warming is akin to a religion – an irrational belief in a man made fantasy which cannot be proved or disproved. The Global Warming religion is at present entirely based on the opinions of people who are not independent, but rely for their livelihood on perpetuating these beliefs, in precisely the same way that vicars and rabbis do with their religions.
There are many other emitters of carbon dioxide apart from man, including volcanoes, soil and other life forms. Collectively these emit more carbon dioxide than man, but the Global Warming exponents never publish comparative data.
There are also many absorbers of carbon dioxide – primarily plants and algae – so that the carbon cycle remains largely in balance. However, the destruction of a tree has a more profound effect on the carbon cycle than actual carbon dioxide emissions. An emission occurs once, and the resulting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is then absorbed, provided that it is at or near sea level. Whereas when a tree is destroyed, the carbon dioxide that it would have absorbed fails to be absorbed year after year after year. The cumulative effect is far greater. Yet there is nowhere near as much focus on stopping the destruction of trees and planted areas than there is on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Good business
Why is this? The reason is money. There is a whole industry making millions out of perpetuating the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have an affect on global climate and finding ways to reduce them. The beneficiaries include so called climate scientists, some of whom are known to manipulate and falsify data and do not act in a transparent and open way and release their information as any true scientist would. They are akin to scientific journalists who have to create a story in order to get paid.
For example, if you ask people what were the most significant events in the twentieth century very few, if any. will say the rise in sea level. Yet so called climate scientists are citing the very similar rise in sea level which they predict as being a disaster for the planet.
There are also many companies which make money out of advising and supplying products to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Due to the nature of modern politics these powerful lobbyists are able to direct governments to make decisions in accordance with their interests, and not the interests of ordinary people.
It is notable that there are not many people making money out of not cutting down trees, so even though this is probably a more important factor it appears well down the agenda list.
The worst possible emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases come from airliners. These emit in the upper atmosphere where there are no plants to absorb the carbon dioxide. They also emit nitrogen oxides, which have a greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. In addition they reduce the light falling on the planet and hence reduce the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the plants. Then why are we considering the building of new runways and expanding aviation? It is a simple matter of the same power of money and the lobbyists. It could also be a matter of the self interests of politicians who frequently use air travel and receive very preferential treatment by the airports when they do so.
Even if it could be established that man made emissions of carbon dioxide are creating a warmer climate, the next question is would global warming be good for the planet as a whole or not? In fact, an amount of global warming would definitely benefit the planet by releasing large areas of Russia and North America to agriculture, in theory increasing the food supply.
Like most things, global warming is good for some and not so good for others. We know from historical records that some global warming would be good for the UK. The wine industry is already benefitting and producing wines which can be superior to those currently produced in France.
Better safe than sorry?
Some say surely there can be no harm in trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary. As far as we know no-one has died as a result of any global warming . However, we have evidence that people are dying as a result of the quasi-religious obsession in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. For example the unfortunate people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire ( q.v. ), and the people who are still dying as a result of the pollution cause by diesel engines, which were encouraged by the labour government because they produced less carbon dioxide, even though it was known that they also produce very harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates. Imagine all of the people who could have been helped by the money sunk into trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
There is an old saying that the cure can be worse than the disease. This seems to be the case here. One can only hope that Donald Trump’s stance on the Paris Agreement will encourage others to look more closely at the facts and insist on full disclosure instead of relying on the opinions of so called climate scientists with a vested interest in perpetuating their beliefs. Perhaps you could do the same.
After withdrawing from the Paris Agreement Donald Trump has been accused of putting the interests of the USA first. Isn’t it about time that the UK government puts the interests of Britain first instead of killing its citizens.
What do you think? Is it okay to rely on our emotions and irrational beliefs in order to create a unified community reinforced by memes, as many religions do, and that killing a few people as a result is an acceptable cost?
The Future
What if it turns out that there is a problem caused by man made emsission of carbon dioxide after all? Then that would only be a symptom and not the problem itself. The problem is simply that there are too many people on the planet. No amount of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will change that. Nature has its own way of correcting such imbalances and this will occur eventually regardless of anything we do. It may take some time, but it will happen. For example, when the next ice age comes, as we know it will, then many millions of people, if not billions, will die. Ironically, if man can indeed have a measurable effect on global climate, then the warmer we can get the planet before the next ice age the fewer people that will die. Any attempt to reduce global warming is therefore potentially condemning millions of people to death.
When the human population has been reduced by natural events or otherwise the planet will recover. It may take many hundreds if not thousands of years, but in Earth’s geological timescales this is a mere blink of an eye. The destruction of a coral reef by changing conditions is cited as a disaster, but this is all part of the natural cycle. When conditions are right again it will only take 200 years or so to form a new coral reef. That process has been happening over and over again for millions of years and has contributed to the diversity which we see today.