A hand book to understand Global Warming deniers
It is interesting to see that as the farce that is the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen draws ever closer, the political machine is cranked up to the max. The campaign is quite reminscent to the one Dubbya Bush ran in the run up to the last US presidential elections where all of a sudden the US of A was under an imminent threat from terrorism and the terrorism alert scale notched up.
Similarly, suddenly the UN releases a dire news release which makes broad sweeping claims along the lines of dramatically rising sea levels (actually, the rise is quite in line with the general rise of the sea levels over a century during a warming period), melting polar ice caps (which has been refuted as for the last 2 winters, the artic polar sea ice is in a cyclic balance dating back to 1870 – in other words, it hasn’t been increasing in disappearance over the last 20 years vs 100 years), that the last decade has been the warmest on record (despite many items in the press of late showing if anything, a slight decrease in temperatures since the El Nino year of 1997), and rising sea levels impacting on low lying islands which persist in drawing down on aquifers and changing the sea patters to encourage erosion (reference one and reference two.
However, if you are to be a true scientist and debater in this, you HAVE to know the point of view of the so-called ‘deniers.’ It is an unfair fight when the Global Warming Supporters refuse to listen to the problems raised by deniers and then supress them. To that end, a “Global Warming Sceptics” handbook has been created highlighting the sceptics story.
This booklet has been sent to Australian politicians in the lead up to Australia deciding on their course of action with regards to climate change. Bear in mind, this issue is as close to their hearts as those who believe man is causing warming and they want to honestly debate this issue.
It is ironic that this book raises the same issue we do – that the funding for finding evidence to support Global Warming has been very one-sided and biased. If this is not acceptable when reporting drug trials, why is it acceptable on an issue which could cost the trillions of dollars to the average consumer?
Bear in mind, we at the Dappled Planet don’t dispute warming is happening… we just don’t believe any but an insignificantly small part of it is caused by man, so that means if we spend trillions of dollars trying to lower CO2 emissions which isn’t really causing global warming, then… what are we going to do when we have to adress the REAL issues that are changing the environment we live in- and the warming continues? And what are we going to do when in 100 years time, the evidence will probably be rather overwhelming that all the CO2 emissions control hasn’t stopped the planet warming? We’d rather the trillions of dollars were spent creating a sustainable environment between humanity and the rest of the planet. Not lining Big Corporation pockets on something we probably won’t ever have much impact on. Warmimg is happening… we’d better adapt to it, not think we can stop it.
Remember… at the end of the day, the entire Global Warming Catastrophe is being driven by politicians and business men, not scientists, and its based on nothing more than number crunching in a computer. We have at our disposal millions of years of earth’s climate history locked in the rocks and they tell a different story to the number crunchers. Ignore that and we will find ourselves in a far worse enivronmental crisis than anything gradually increasing levels of CO2 will deliver.
