Accept climate change as man made or you are mentally ill

Disagree with man causes climate change and be labeled as mentally ill

by Michael Smith

This appears to be the message that is being put forth by those that vehemently will only allow the world to believe that the change in climate, once referred to erroneously as global warming, is cause (entirely) by human activities and the farts of cows.

It is impossible even to have a discussion and discourse with them without them becoming venomous, as we have experienced on some forum recently. They are right and everyone else who disagrees with them and their theories is wrong and is suffering from a mental disorder, climate change denial.

No one was even denying the fact that the climate is changing; the question was whether it is attributable (entirely) to human activities (and the passing of wind of ruminants). What was brought forth was the question as to whether it may not be – as I am many, it would appear, a natural cycle of the Earth. No way would anyone of the so-called scientists – and some that are not – accept even the possibility that it could be a wobbly that Mother Earth throws every thousand or so years. All the evidence in history points to this but, oh no, say the “scientists”, it is CO2 and man's activities.

Those are the same kind of scientists, though not necessarily the very same, who in the 1960s and 1970s claimed that we were going to go into a new Ice Age and gave the same reasons for it, such as the increasing desertification of the African Savannas and such, etc., etc.

Then, suddenly, the discovered the hole in the Ozone layer and – oh dear – that was due to human activities and the CFCs. The truth is that the only reason we were suddenly able to see this hole in the Ozone layer was that our technology made it possible at that point. Who, therefore, can say that that hole is not something that is natural too? Who?

So far all I am seeing is some changes in climate and when it is said that species are declining because of climate change I would like to see the proof.

Most of those species are not in decline because it is getting warmer or whatever but are in decline because us humans have destroyed and are destroying the habitat on which those animals and such depend or e have hunted or fished then to extinction.

The house sparrow, for instance, in Britain is in serious decline and will probably in the not so distant future, unfortunately, end up on the red list if he is not already. Please no one try to claim that this has to do with climate change, for it has not. It has to do with loss of habitat and, for instance, the fact that so much of our earth has been concreted and tarmacked over. Nothing to do with climate change.

The decline of animals in the African steppe or the tigers in India also is not due to climate change but to what us humans have done to them, be this destruction of habitat or just huinting them for this or that reason.

However, in some arguments for man-made climate change this is being mentioned, and other such issues.

The cod did not decline because of change in water temperatures, for instance, off the Newfoundland coast, but because it was just fished to near total extinction. And we keep doing that left, right and center.

Eminent environmentalists and scientists who disagree with the accepted climate change is man-made line have been silenced with the treat that they would not be able to publish anything anymore if they did not shut up, such as in the case of David Bellamy, opposing the “accepted” line. This is the same as what happens when someone comes along an upsets the applecart as regards the studies on the Gypsy People, the Romani. We have seen the same thing there. This is worse then religious bigotry and this is very close to an environmental version of the Inquisition.

Folks, we are still, even in the field of climate change “science” of hypothesis and theories; nothing has been proven as yet.

However, there are some historic points that should be taken into account.

Let's start with the Romans in Britain. During their time they grew dark-red, often referred to as black, grapes, for the making of red wine, all the way up to Hadrian's Wall in the British Isles. The Romans, I would like to add, liked, so the story goes, sweet and potent red wine. To achieve that you need lots of sun and and warmth and a rather long growing season. This would not be possible in Britain now. Therefore, no other explanation is possible than that the climate was warmer in the British Isles then. Oh, when was that? In the first couple of centuries BC. It got rather cold again then though at around the time the Romans packed their bags and left.

Now enter the time of the Vikings on their travels, about the 9th and 10th century.

The History Channel had a special in March 2009 on Greenland. Certain areas of Greenland that were under ice have now melted and it has made it possible for historians to study the Viking settlement of Eric the Red and others that had been on the island before the island was covered in ice.

Greenland is the example for the fact that climate changed like this before, or was it the methane emissions from all those cattle that they kept that did it and caused that warming, or maybe their boats were not powered by sail and oars but had diesel engines instead. Maybe it is time someone read the Viking Sagas.

The Vikings named the island Greenland (Gronland in their language) because is was green and covered with vegetation of all kinds. This story was very interesting especially in the context of the Global Warming/Climate Change issues. The island had trees and grass etc during the Medieval Climate optimum and then iced up during the Little Ice Age in the 14th and 15th century.

This tallies with the story of the Vikings' arrival in Newfoundland and calling the land “Vinland”, that is to say “Land of the Wine”, because of the juicy dark-red grapes they found there.

The Vikings were not just raiders and such like. They were cattlemen and they settled in Greenland because of the great pasture land that was to be found there. When in the centuries after the island iced over and also the Canadian areas became cold they left and returned to Europe, most of them.

Other records too speak of the fact that the period of the 11th and 12th centuries in Europe, for instance, were very warm. There are journals of monks in the French Jura that speak of little boys swimming naked in the rivers (of the Jura) in January and February and of playing about naked. The monks seems to make it a habit – a bad one – to watch small boys, so it would seem. Nevertheless, aside from the fact that small boys were, probably, a lot hardier in those days than they are today, swimming in those rivers in what is winter would not be feasible unless the climate was rather warm. I would not want to swim in those rivers even in summer today. No sir.

And after those times we suddenly see a change again and the northern regions are being abandoned by settlers, whether this was Newfoundland and Labrador by the Vikings or Greenland.

But, I know, it is not going to make one iota of a difference to list all those periods of warm and cold; the eggheads will continue with their pratter that global warming, aka climate change, is man-made due to CO2 emissions, etc., and with their hidden agenda. The latter is which? Well, if we but knew. Suspicion, however, must go to the attempt of controlling where people can live and work by removing their right to personal transport in the form of the motorcar.

Maybe someone also should take a close look at Australian findings that state that the temperatures of the Earth have not risen for the last 6 or so years and have indeed plateaued out. Even the IPCC's president accepted the findings from that university in Australia. Shame that he and his ilk then continue to spout the stuff about “if temperatures are going to rise by this or that” - if they have plateaued and not risen by even a fraction then they are not going to do so, more than likely.

Having said that that does not mean, however, that the sea levels will not rise whether or not the temperatures will. They will, simply because of the fact it is now warmer than it was and thus the ice will continue to melt. That particular problem is not going to go away, regardless. Not until the sea ice freezes again and that will mean the temperatures will have to drop rather significantly.

The Earth's climate has been changing forever and a day and the problem is that, if it is natural phenomenon, then we have no way of stopping it. So, what now? We have to learn to live with it as our ancient ones did when it was warm and when it got to a mini ice age again.

The fact is, whether the eggheads with a hidden agenda want to believe it or not, the climate of the world has been changing about every 1000 years or so. Accept it that we may not be able to stop it. We have to live with it. And this is where the problem comes in. All effort is concentrated on “combating climate change and greenhouse gas emissions” and no one seems to look at what we are going to do if we cannot stop anything.

That does not mean that we should not stop living the way we do, for that way is way beyond unsustainable.

We have to even more than ever conserve energy and especially water. Our wastage of water also greatly contributes to sea level rises, more so, more than likely than any melting of ice.

We must, regardless of whether or not climate change, global warming, or whatever we may wish to call it, is caused by CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions or not, move over to a sustainable lifestyle, all of us.

Sustainability must be the watchword in everything that we do and the three “Rs” or even more “Rs” than that and other activities must become second nature and habit for us.

Looking at every item that we wan t to consign to the trash bin more than once with the thoughts of “what can I use this for rather than throwing it”, “what could I, or some other crafty person make from this”, etc. Only then should we put it into the appropriate recycling bins and not before.

Oh dear. I digressed again a little towards the end, I see. Now, how did we get here?

Oh yes! The established climate science community and the advocates of man-made climate change think that all of us who think a little different on that matter are in fact climate change deniers and are therefore to be considered as mentally ill and in need of immediate treatment. “Ve ar vrom ze gavernment ent ve ar hier to helk yu” (sorry for my bad German accent).

I for one do not deny it happening, I know it is happening; I question, and so do many others, as to whether it has anything to do what man has done, and historical evidence points to the fact that the Earth has always gone through such cycles, and if it is not man-made then what do we do. We must then find ways of how to live with it in the same way as we must learn to live with Nature rather than always trying to fight Her. Only in living in harmony with Nature can even hope to survive and that calls for a big reduction in our environmental footprint and our impact on the Earth.

© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009