Re: Climate Change
It’s a funny thing about climate change. In the mid 70’s they warned us about global cooling, and that a new ice age was approaching. A short time after that, the topic quietly morphed into global warming and stayed there for a while, until it reached a fever pitch.
In the past decade Climate gate burst into the news cycle because of a hacker who exfiltrated documents from a server at the Climatic Research Unit. Among these documents were those that indicated that the decline in warming should be hidden. Apparently, they managed to generate a special chart in order to mask that very inconvenient fact, because getting defunded really stinks, and in order to prevent that, you’ve really just got to tow the line.
By now the new hip term for global warming is ‘climate change’. What perturbs me about that phraseology is that the two words in and of themselves, they’re indisputable. I mean, I don’t think there’s a person in the world who believes that the weather is unchanging. After all, we see the weather change every day, so in that sense it’s very true.
Yet the people who wield the words climate+ change, they’re talking of anthropogenic (or manmade) climate change. Surely, human activity is almost certain to influence the temperature in our environment to some extent. Yet, have any of us considered the potential that they might be exaggerating our effect on the weather?
For example, it’s popular theory that the dinosaurs became extinct because of an ice age. Did that Ice age happen because the dinosaurs didn’t expel enough carbon emissions in order to prevent it? Or was it related to sun cycles, or the position of the sun in relation to the earth, or a combination of the two?
You see, what the interested financial powers that be would have you believe is that they are to be the saviors of mankind. The priest class of the climate change believers, they wish to become the issuers of carbon indulgences, on the pretense that they are powerful enough through their great wisdom to save the world from an almost certain impending doom.
Big question is, if we assume that they are correct in all of their assessments. Then, mathematically speaking, if we grind industry to a halt and stop carbon emissions, will it solve the problem? Or will it merely enrich a few in the short term, and cause a massive inflation of prices that will ultimately prevent the poor from access to jobs, or affordable goods and services. The large corporations when taxed on their emissions will immediately pass those cost down to the consumer.
So, if this thing is a money making scheme, we had better be sure we’re right about the numbers. I mean we haven’t even figured out cancer yet, but we can control the weather? I seriously doubt we collectively have as much control as they pretend we do. Also I think if we try to accomplish what they want to do; it’s going to do far more harm than it will good.
The weather has naturally changed radically throughout the ages. It might simply be beyond our control. What if, with all of our efforts, we can only influence it a degree or two? Wouldn’t that have been a colossal waste of money? The people, who see this issue even better than I do, know that it will result in mass starvation, and lives lost. If we we’re to let them run roughshod over us.
OK, I was about to answer those points, however please indulge me and watch David Mitchell talk about the subject for 2:52 seconds.
Because even if all you say is true, his point, which is kind of mine, still rings true.
Cg
I agree that many times it's correct to err on the side of caution as the man in the video suggests. However, what I would propose is that a series of questions be considered. For example I would like to see the science folks answer the following questions.
1.) How much carbon do we intend to reduce over the next 100 years?
2.) How many degrees of warming will this prevent?
3.) Will it be worth it, to cripple industry for all of those years in order to prevent ?° of global warming?
If I remember correctly, it may have been Lord Monckton of Brenchley who posed a similar thought experiment. He prefaced it with, let’s assume they are right for sake of argument. I can't find the exact clip, but he's an interesting guy to listen to with respects to the great climate debate. His logic seems sound to me, if you're interested in one of the more rational voices from the other side of the argument.
Especially when one of those times we are talking about saving the only planet we have to live on.
If you merge your first and second questions together, while slightly changing them, you have a much more pertinent one which I believe has been asked.
If all the plans fit into place, how much carbon is it possible to reduce, and what effect will that have on the environment?
This question has been answered . . .
It's like Mitchell says, when the American Association of Geologists for Petroleum finally agree with everyone else (as in every credible scientist on the planet) about climate change, that's when you've got to sit up and take notice.
Remember petroleum companies stand to lose out when it comes to green taxes, however even they are run by human beings, who enjoy living on planet earth and realise that they can play a part in helping our continued living on the planet.
I will checkout Monckton, I'll see if I can find that video on youtube and come back to you if I can.
Cheers
Cg
Oh and to answer your 3rd question
Yes, because as far as I'm aware you can't spend money when you're dead.
PS, it is not called global warming anymore, it is climate change, whilst that might seem a matter of semantics, it is more accurate. Not everywhere will get hotter because of climate change.
For instance if we turn off the gulf stream through our actions, parts of the globe in the south will freeze.
Cg
Do you think with the rebranding from global warming to climate change that it will alter the way in which they address the problem? E.g. to address global warming they wanted to encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions, and this would be enforced by a tax if the companies did not do it.
The tax would be a unreasonably hefty spank you very much kind of tax. So the price of business for the company would then be to purchase carbon credits so they could emit more carbon, than what they are allotted.
What I see in this plan is the same scam that banks carried out when they issued paper certificates (or notes) in exchange for gold and silver deposits. They quickly learned that they could print more certificates than they had holdings, and became very rich.
So much so in America that they had to eventually de-anchor the currency from its' physical counterpart, or the hard asset. Transforming it from money that was backed by physical value to a fiat currency.
In essence I predict that the same would happen with the carbon credits, there would be nothing to prevent them from over issuing them when they'll be selling them for money. I believe they are trying to get in on the ground floor of the next great scam.
I think it's safe to say that the biggest scam in America and maybe the world is the Federal Reserve, and it's worthless notes (or dying petrol dollar). As that system slowly dies on the vine, people desperately want to be in charge of what takes it's place.
With Trump in office, I think it's really derailing their agenda here in America. He's not quite down with what I perceive to be the con. I'm sure you are probably studied on this issue. However, just in case you are not, here is a cartoon short about it.
It's a highly entertaining, and very very informative piece entitled 'The American Dream'. It's bound to inspire future musings if you've never come across it before.
For me it really helps me to understand that parallels of what will probably happen if they implement the carbon credit hustle. It would be just like the banking scam, but only reworked a bit. The carbon credits would be a new commodity that they could conjure up unlimited amounts of, and their value would be backed by the fear if we don't adopt it, we're all gonna die.
I imagine like during the days of ancient Egypt, maybe you'd have a member of the priest class who the villagers would turn to for mystical advice. This man is a learned man who has studied the occult very deeply, more specifically astronomy.
He knows today is the day that the moon will blot out the sun for a period of time, resulting in darkness. So he makes ominous predictions about the god's being angry and what must be done to appease them.
Then when the time is right, he vehemently barks at his people to bring their items of value to the temple in order to appease Horus to return again, and bring fourth his light so that they may have a fruitful harvest.
Nobody would dare to ask him why the Sun god needs all their gold, they'd simply oblige out of superstition, and when the sun returned to it's normal state, they'd thank him profusely, and worship him with even more devotion.