Stephen Hawking, in a recent
article, stated that we should start looking around for a new planet to
colonise because ‘with climate change,
overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is
increasingly precarious’. If all that’s coming, maybe we should just
leave now! Stephen Hawking is a clever man, but he’s obviously looking
for a big grant to fund research or something. Now, let’s be logical
about it and look at the reality. We’re miles from anywhere habitable and
he suggests colonies on the Moon or Mars. Why would we leave a planet
that is rich in water, plant and animal life to live on a barren wasteland with
no water, life or atmosphere? This is another of those statements paraded
all over the media that terrorize the population and keep us in a constant
state of fear.
Coincidentally, I have
been looking into the science behind ‘global-warming’ and ‘climate change’, for
several weeks now and (I have to get the language right here) from the evidence
I have gathered, I have concluded that we’ve all been taken for huge
ride.
When it comes to man-made
global-warming and climate change, I’ll be the first to admit, I believed
it. I didn’t even bother with the science because I thought, ‘well, you
can’t lie about science; it’s all based on evidence and research, isn’t
it?’ I’ve always enjoyed science programmes, never missed Tomorrow’s
World and I even wanted to study it at school but we had a rubbish science
department. I remember looking through the biology books, a subject you
weren’t allowed to do until 3rd year, and the pages on human
reproduction were torn out because they had a picture of a naked man and woman
in them. We sneaked a look at the teacher’s book, they were still in his.
So, everything in nature procreated except humanity, in the narrow
world of the Convent Grammar.
Going back to the early
1990’s, some doubts were raised. I was doing a Life Sciences course as
part of a Foundation course at Magee College and I remember reading this in one
of the journals, and it always stuck with me. It said, ‘there is no such
thing as an environmental crisis in nature, because nature is always working to
repair the damage’. That, and the fact that the teacher didn’t believe
any of the environmentalist’s warnings, about what was happening. We also
discussed the fact, that back in the 1960’s, they were talking about another
ice-age, which I remember too…barely that is!
But, courses end and life
moves on, and you become distracted by other things, and I didn’t give it much
more thought. I could see the benefits of recycling and trying to cut
back on energy usage if for no other reason than to save a few pounds, and
assumed we were being told the truth because the general consensus in the media
seemed to confirm there were problems with the climate. There were
stories about El Nino and a hole in the ozone layer and in 1995, we had
the summer from heaven, 3 months of the most beautiful warm, sunny weather and
we thought, ‘well, if this is global warming, bring it on!’
And as I sit here and write
this, I’m thinking, it’s June, my roses have only bloomed in the last couple of
weeks, last year one rose bush didn’t bloom until July and even then it was
only for about 2 weeks. I had my heating on last night, I still have the
quilt on my bed and I’ve even had to wear pyjamas a couple of nights this month
as it was so cold.
Now, this all came about
because I’ve been having more political debates and discussions with my sister
(Me: for Jeremy Corbyn. Her: not) Then, the topic of climate-change came
up; and there’s another thing I noticed recently, there’s less talk about
‘global-warming’ now. The language of the debate is changing and it’s
becoming more about ‘climate change’, have you noticed that? Anyway, she
has always been a sceptic and has complained a lot about paying taxes for
something she said wasn’t true so after some debate she said, check out Piers
Corbyn’s website, Weatheraction.com. At this point, neither she nor
I knew Jeremy and Piers were brothers. So, I did.
Weather forecasting is Piers
Corbyn’s area of expertise and when he started studying, he noticed a
correlation between solar (sunspot) activity and temperature and climate change
on earth. He was so successful in using this information in
weather-forecasting that he was able to live off the money he won, betting on
the weather.
Now, when you actually read
the science you come to understand that the earth has always had periods of
warming and cooling. There was a warming period in medieval times, when
Greenland was green and the Vikings lived and farmed there. There was a
mini ice-age about 600 years ago (we’ve warmed up a bit since then) but
scientists on several sites seem to agree that we are now in a cooling period
again. This data is derived from studies on solar activity.
On the website climatescienceinternational.org,
6 leading British scientists, including Piers and the well-known botanist,
David Bellamy, Phd; and many others from around the world, have put their name
to this statement:
We,
the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find
convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide
are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
It also states their reason
for compiling a register of scientists:
‘A
common misunderstanding amongst the general public, mainstream media and
politicians is that only a small proportion of experts in the climate science
community have serious problems with the concept of a carbon dioxide-driven
climate crisis. In reality, thousands of climate experts are highly skeptical
of this hypothesis.
This
fact has been repeatedly demonstrated through open letters, petitions and other
declarations. However, these documents have not had sufficient impact on
government policy largely because mainstream media have generally ignored them
and so only a minority of the public is aware of their existence’.
On petitionprojectorg,
31,487 US scientists, 9029 of them Phd’s, have signed their name to another
petition whose purpose is:
‘to
demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus”
in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent
climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.
Publicists
at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that
only a few “sceptics” remain…It is evident that 31,487 Americans with
university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a
few."
These
scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming
hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the
basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage
both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
So, I started really looking
in to this and gathering data about ‘global warming’, I typed in ‘facts about
global-warming and I got a site called Co2earth which gives the Co2 levels in
the atmosphere which at this time are 400ppm (parts per million) which doesn’t
sound like a lot. (I wonder what’s making up the other 999,600 parts.).
Anyway, back in the Cambrian period, Co2 levels were at 7000ppm and I
also found out that the Cambrian period is ‘famed for its explosion of abundant
and diverse life forms’. So no harm done there then!
Now, to be fair, I also
checked out the other side. The first thing I noticed about the pro GW/CC
sites was that they didn’t have a lot of actual scientists, scientific papers
or links to all the evidence and one of the first things I came across, on one
of the sites, was a statement that said there was a global consensus among
scientists about ‘man-made climate change’, which I knew straightaway from my
research, was a lie. According to the GW/CC ‘science’, rising Co2 levels
are causing the earth to warm up but the actual real science shows us that
reverse is true. Temperature rises cause Co2 levels to increase.
Part of the reason for this is that warm water cannot hold as much Co2 as cold
water and the oceans contain huge amounts of Co2. So, when the water
warms up it releases Co2 but Co2 levels are not static anyway and are moving
all the time. As a greenhouse gas, Co2 isn’t very big either. They
largest greenhouse gas is water vapour, yes, I know, I couldn’t believe that
one either. Water vapour coming off the oceans makes up about 96% of
greenhouse gases. Co2 is contained in the other 4% along with methane and
other gases. As a proportion of the atmosphere, Co2 is about 0.039% with
nitrogen making up 78% and oxygen 21%. Again, that’s not a lot, as Paul
Daniels used to say. (Gawd, I’m really starting to show my age!)
Anyway, back to the
science! Co2 or carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring element on earth;
it is in everything, plants, animals, the oceans, the land, us,
everywhere. As a matter of fact, if there were no Co2, everything would
die. We even breathe it in and out. We breathe in 400ppm of Co2 but
we breathe out 40,000ppm and as the man says, I don’t think anyone has died
from Co2 poisoning while receiving CPR. We could actually do with some
more Co2 as it makes everything grow bigger and better, it’s the very food of
life for plants and trees.
Now, the earth itself is about
71% water to 29% land. 33% of the land is deserts and 3% is urbanised
which doesn’t really sound like a lot either. So if you were worrying
about the impact of your non eco- friendly light bulbs, stop now because how
much of a difference is that going to make when you look at the big picture?
Here’s another piece of info,
99.9% of the energy that drives the earth’s climate comes from the sun.
And this is backed up time and again by data. When the sun is active the
temperature goes up and then the oceans release Co2. Water vapour rises
forms clouds and helps to insulate the earth, keeping it warm. You’ll
know this from the difference in a clear sky at night and a cloudy one.
Clear skies in autumn, winter and spring bring frosts. So, if we’re
causing the planet to heat up, then it is only a fraction of a percent and
again, light bulb vs sun? Think about the proportions.
We also have to remember when
we hear stories of the highest temperature or warmest month since records
began, they have only been keeping records since 1880. (I think parts of
England had a hottest day since 1976 last week, didn’t they?) Again,
let’s think about it proportionally, that’s 137 years out of 4 500 000
000. The earth has been around for many years and has gone through many
changes so keep that in mind the next time you hear the hottest, wettest,
driest day/week/month since records began!
The main body promoting
climate change is the IPCC which stands for the International Panel on Climate
Change which was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorogical
Organisation in 1988. A lot of their scientific data was drawn from what they
call proxy studies which take information from many sources and are notoriously
unreliable as models for predicting anything. They have used the Mann
‘hockey stick’ graph to show the rising temperature but this graph is still the
subject of debate as to the authenticity of the results and has been subjected
to charges of manipulation. Some of the temperature data is taken from
urban sites which are naturally warmer. There have also been difficulties
in replicating the study which is a really big deal in science. It’s like
reverse plagiarism, you have to be able to follow the exact same procedures, to
see if you get the same result, otherwise, the study is invalidated.
So, if like me, you were
worried about humanity and the future of the planet, then I hope I have eased
your mind, keep looking at the big picture and don’t let yourself be terrorised
by the government and Al Gore. Al Gore is a charlatan and I really hope
he reads this and sues me so I can take him to court and expose the fraud. Now,
climate change is happening because the climate changes all the time so it’s
always happening and always will. Here is a little table showing hot and
cold periods on the earth since 200AD.
200 – 600 Warming
440 – 900
Cooling (Dark Ages)
900 – 1300 Warming again
1300 – 1850 Cooling (little
ice-age)
1850 - present
Warming with possible cooling period ahead
So, there you have it.
Now, asteroids, I’m afraid we can do nothing about. A big one might
arrive at any time but I would like to think if we were facing some life
extinction event like that, then we would pull together and use all those nukes
to blow it away in a grand display of human camaraderie while unilaterally
disarming at the same time! Kill two problems with one big bang, so to
speak.
Epidemics? Again, I
think we’re fairly well disposed to sorting out those threats with all the good
scientists and scientific knowledge we do have. But if the worst happens,
well, the upside is, we won’t have to worry about population growth! There you
go, problem solved! See, every cloud has a silver lining…and a large
percentage of greenhouse gases! By the way, the population is
dropping in Europe so there’s another thing we don’t have to worry about.
I’m going to be a real bore
about this from now on, I can’t believe how quickly I learned all this
stuff. I didn’t even realise I knew this much until I got into a spat on
Facebook about it, and I was able to ream off facts and figures without having
to check my notes. I have to say, I even impressed myself and more importantly,
I got the last word! Game, set and match to me!!
I’m actually thinking about
creating a fake science site and starting an internet rumour about Co2. I’m
going to tell people that ‘scientists have reported that if we all held our
breath for a minute every day for a year we could reduce Co2 levels by 10%’ and
see how long it takes to become an urban myth. So, do me a favour and start
spreading it around.
And for anyone who’s
interested, here are a few links to sites with lots more interesting reading
and scientific facts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth/Cambrian
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/looming-threat-of-global-cooling.pdf
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=370
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf
