There is something fascinating about the debate over Global Warming, or as it’s been rebranded, Climate Change. What is most fascinating is the polarisation, and the fact that it’s a debate at all.
The polarisation gives us carbon-trading Billionaires like Climate Gloom evangelist Al Gore and head of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri (shouldn’t he be ‘neutral’?), on the one side wanting us to believe we are heading for disaster and it’s all our fault.
They roll out awful and scary predictions (none have ever come true) about how we are all going to die like in the best of the Hollywood blockbuster global disaster movies when everybody in the world dies. These ‘warmists’ are normally politically left of centre, liberal, and, to my mind mainly raving mad.
On the other side we have extreme climate sceptics, often referred to as ‘deniers’, who will pick up on any available point of contention and do the best they can to say everything’s ok, nothing is actually happening or changing, and the world has always had a changing climate. At the same time, they will also tell us that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and that a god created everything. These ‘sceptics’ are normally politically right of centre, conservative, and also, to my mind mainly raving mad.
So, both teams will spout out an endless mind-bomb of information and doctored statistics to back-up their position. The result? Well, confusion.
The Climate Change debate shouldn’t be a debate at all. The only reason it is a debate is because we don’t yet know how to properly confirm or analyse the quite limited data we have. The data then gets used to re-inforce both positions with so much accompanying ‘noise’ that it’s difficult for the lay person to know what to believe.
In the middle of all this are people like me. There are quite a lot of us, too. In my case, I am an atheist, yet from studying the science, I believe that the evidence that humanity is in some way disastrously contributing to Global Warming is not yet proven.
I also look at the extremists on both sides of the argument and see ‘faith’ not science. Just as people will irrationally ‘believe’ in a god and all the accompanying mumbo-jumbo, so too are both sides hooked on their beliefs and unable to move from the positions their minds have left them ‘believing’.
Slightly more sinister though, are the activities of the ‘warmist’ evangelists. These people like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri aren’t just saying the world is going to end and we’re all to blame, but they have solutions they are trying to bully us into which are designed to make them very rich. Aha! Even more reason to not trust them.
Heck, would you trust the head of a tobacco company when he told you the only way to save yourself from the end of the world is to smoke at least 40 cigarettes a day? Of course you wouldn’t. That’s because you can see through his lies and you can see how he is set to profit from you.
Well, the same is true of those who want us to focus on Carbon Dioxide emissions, which for some mysterious reason they just call ‘carbon’. They call it that because the word ‘carbon’ conjures up an image of black, dirty, greasy, gunky ‘stuff’, whilst ‘carbon dioxide’ conjures up an image of, well, air. They need us not to like ‘carbon dioxide’, so it has to be presented as dirty lumps in order for us to fall for the story.
They want to implement compulsory global systems which implement a ‘carbon tax’ and can allow ‘carbon trading’. Conveniently they are nicely geared up to profit from ‘carbon trading’, which is why alarms should ring about these two evangelists especially.
We need to resist ‘carbon taxes’ ‘carbon trading’ and doing anything to further financially destroy us until there’s more evidence that humanity will in some way benefit from making these carbon traders even richer.