Scientific consensus that Global Warming is man-made?
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Time and again we are told by the media and certain scientists that there is a complete consensus amongst all the scientific community as to Global Warming being a result of human activity.
Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. There is, in fact, no such consensus at all.
They do keep claiming this, however, again and again, whether this is in newspapers, on websites, on the radio or on the TV. Media men and women and scientists keep keep telling us that all scientist are in total agreement as to the theory of Global Warming being a result of man and what he has done, be that the use of fossil fuels, etc., or what-have-you.
But, as indicated, the truth is different. There are many eminent scientists, who have been “green” before any of the others every arrived at that stage, and who have much better credentials, who vehemently disagree with that notion of human activities being responsible for the rise – until some years ago – in the global temperatures.
What, though, has been happening is that any voices that are critical as to the assumption of Global Warming, aka Climate Change, being caused by man's activities have been silenced or attempts are being made to silence them.
The “man-made” part to Global Warming and/or Climate Change is not fact but nothing but theory.
However, anyone in the environmental scientific community – or any other branch of science for that fact – daring to speak against the “accepted” line and notion that the change in our climate, which indeed appear to be happening, is caused by man and his activities are told to shut up or lose funding for whatever projects they are working on and even that they will be blackballed and hence no longer be permitted to speak or lecture and that their books will no longer be allowed to be published. And you thought this was all a free and democratic world.
Many of those eminent scientists have succumbed to that pressure and have, indeed, shut up, such as Professor David Bellamy, from the UK, who has spoken out very harshly against the notion of man being totally to blame for Climate Change many times. Having been told similar to what I said above he decided to – and who can blame him – put his career and livelihood before the truth.
We are still being told in the media and by so many with their agenda that the temperatures will continue to rise over the next decades and such, despite the findings of Australian scientists that state that the Earth's temperatures have not risen for the last number of years, but in fact have plateaued out and remained unchanged.
They also all conveniently ignore the findings of NASA climatologists that talk about the possibility of a new ice age – well, a mini ice age – like that in the Middle Ages coming upon us; based on the fact that the sun is at its quietest for about a century or so, presenting a pattern that caused the mini ice age in the mid-nineteenth century, for instance, and looking close to that pattern that caused the mini ice age in the period of the sixteenth and seventeenth century when ice fairs were held on the frozen River Thames in London.
When will the lobby stop trying to make out that the Earth will continue to get warmer when other eminent bodies predict the opposite. All are, and I state that clearly, but theories, and that applies to man-made Global Warming as much to the cooling due to quiet sun activity. We cannot predict what Mother Earth is going to do during such a period when She throws a wobbly as she is doing at present.
Does it matter whether the temperatures are going up – which apparently they have not done in years – or whether they are headed downwards? It does not. All that matters is that a Climate Change is afoot and we better do something and that on more than one level as done at present.
Everyone concentrates on the CO2 emissions and the reductions of them, while still looking at biofuels and the continued use of the internal combustion engine.
Biofuel, especially biodiesel, is said to have more possibly harmful emissions than diesel from crude oil, and in addition to that the production of same is very energy intensive as well as, in the case of other biofuels, such as ethanol, requires a lot of water. Biodiesel is primarily based on oils from palms and other crops that cause serious environmental impact too.
We may just be replacing one extremely serious problem with one that may just be more serious even.
We must clean up our act, regardless as to whether carbon dioxide emissions are to blame from cars and other fossil fuel use. Or let me put it better... emissions from the burning of oils and such.
Todate there is only one carbon neutral fuel, if we talk carbon, as in CO2, and that fuel is wood. Wood, while it is true does release burning byproducts, when it comes to carbon then it only releases that amount of carbon that was stored during the lifetime of the tree; no more and no less.
No biodiesel or ethanol from natural sources will make any difference there as the burning of those still sets free many gases that are harmful; if not to the environment per se then they are thus to us humans and others that use their lungs to breathe.
We probably will not be getting away from burning some fuels for the creation of electricity and such but we do have the option to use fuels that are either carbon neutral, such as wood, and hence renewable – and I do not advocate fast growing woods such a eucalyptus or willow for power station use either – or the likes of methane gas from sewage works, from farm manure, and landfills. This gas needs to be gotten rid off and it is better that it be burned and do us good than just flared off.
Regardless of whether Climate Change is due to man's activities or not we must change our ways and must do so pronto.
© 2009
<>
Unreliable Evidence
