May 4, 2007

Climate Change Heresy!

The subtitle could be 'Confessions of a former believer,' or something like that. You see, like most ordinary people, I love nature, the outdoors, and therefore, I was passionate about the need to reduce greenhouse gases (ie. 'carbon dioxide' per the current wisdom) and promote the Kyoto Accord. I was outraged that the USA refused to sign on to the Accord, and that Canada has been dragging its feet in meeting even minimal target reductions. Taking note of every scientific news story, I was ready to point out the melting of the polar ice-caps, the thawing of the permafrost, the spawning of stronger tropical storms, the increase in wildfires, floods, insect plagues, etc. etc. However... it bothered me that some legitimate scientists were, apparently, still not with the program, still saying this whole hysteria is a fraud. What was wrong with these people-- don't they appreciate this planet? Don't they realize that the future of our species may be at risk?

At this point in any polemical debate, one can do either of two basic things. One, you can tell yourself that 'it's obvious-- the other side is wrong, and must be defeated with louder shouts.' Or, two, you can take a step to the side, and have a look at their arguments to see if there could be any merit in them. Now, how many people take option two, generally speaking? Very few people dare to risk bursting their carefully constructed illusions, or confronting their cherished emotional investments. They retreat into further denial, and may become quite aggressive in attacking any affront to those strongholds of 'reason.' Clearly, though, if in fact, Truth is your main concern, regardless of whether it conforms to your world-view to this point, then you know you must honestly consider the opposite side of your position. If, after a sincere examination, you still believe in the correctness of your current views, then you have actually strengthened them by comparing them against counter-arguments that fall short of convincing. And if you should realize that the opposing arguments have merit and must be addressed, then you have gained new knowledge that is both useful and constructive in the over-riding quest for truth. In other words, there ought to be nothing to fear in considering both sides of every dilemma, and this should be taught throughout our schooling-- but rarely is.

With all that philosophy in mind, I decided it was high time to check out the claims of the global warming nay-sayers. Having just done so, I now have to reverse my position in the face of real science, as opposed to the propaganda that poses as science in the mainstream media (or 'MSM' for short). Strangely, the MSM have taken a long time to get on board the global warming bandwagon; but now co-opted, they are predominantly reporting the desired line that claims 'carbon emissions' are the vile culprit in causing global warming and they must be reduced at all costs. With Al Gore, Mr. Green, going around with his very powerful multimedia dog and pony show, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' millions of new believers are being added to the 'environmental faith' movement. Maybe Mr. Gore really believes his rhetoric; maybe he's fronting for some hidden cause. These days, absolutely nothing can be taken at face value, any more.

Well, what made this 'true believer' become a new heretic (yes-- here we go again!)? As I hinted above, the science speaks for itself-- if we'll just listen. In this essay, I don't want to attempt to regurgitate the great breadth of science that contradicts all the arguments of the 'carbon emissions' theory. That wouldn't be productive, and there are some excellent web sources that do a fine job of presenting the facts in accessible language. (For example, check out www.world-mysteries.com; and view the Google video 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.') What I would like to do here, is just raise a few points based on logic and experience, that put the carbon emissions theory into clear doubt. And to encourage every reader to put aside your preconceptions, and investigate it for yourself. Lastly, I want to speculate a bit on what is behind this headline, critical debate raging in our day.

Just visualize the layer of air surrounding this planet-- the atmosphere. It is a very thin layer relative to the size of the earth. (If the earth were the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be something like a 1-centimeter layer around it, to aid your visualization.) In terms of heat capacity, air has roughly 1000 times less capacity than water to hold heat. We've all boiled water in a kettle or a pot on the stove. Imagine trying to raise the temperature of a pot of water... by heating the air above it. How much heating of the air do you think it would take? Exactly-- a hell of a lot! Yet that is essentially what the 'experts' are trying to tell us-- that the carbon dioxide in the air is causing the atmosphere to retain heat... and that heat is sufficient to cause the melting of polar ice, etc. Most of the ice that is melting is over water; and we know that most of that ice is actually under the water, with only a fraction above, in the air. So-- how can air that is slightly warmer than the historical mean be causing vast areas of ice to melt? And it's melting at a rate that surprises the scientists! The heat must be coming from the water, not the air! As we learn in school, the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, oxygen, and trace gases. Carbon dioxide is one of those trace gases, accounting for about 0.04% of the total. This minute proportion of gas is supposed to be causing enough retention of infrared solar radiation as to raise the mean temperature of the atmosphere by about one degree in the last hundred years. That one degree, we are told, is heating the oceans, the polar caps, and the earth's crust.

Part of Al Gore's presentation shows a very looong graph with two squiggly lines-- one indicating the concentration of CO2 in the air, the other tracking the mean temperature of the earth over 'thousands of years.' Gore is sarcastic in underscoring the obvious correlation between the two lines. Now, it is correct that the two lines move in correspondence; but-- what's the connection? He says it proves that CO2 causes global warming. Science says that global warming causes an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you look at the time scale, you'll see that the CO2 trace lags the air temp graph by several hundred years! In fact, the most important 'greenhouse gas' is water vapor; and vapor is released as the oceans are heated. Since water has 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it is not the air that is heating the water, but vice-versa. Without belaboring this point, I just want to note that the oceans are apparently being warmed from below... as indeed, so is the earth's crust, as in Siberia and the Canadian north. In conclusion, the earth is indeed, experiencing global warming; but, it is NOT being caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions.

What, then, is causing the earth to warm up internally? That is a very good question. So far, the scientists who disbelieve the carbon emission theory, are not fully agreed on an alternative theory, but the consistent factor in the historical periodicity of global warming is the sun, the source of light and heat for our solar system. Records indicate that the sun has been increasingly active over the past century, and is emitting greater energy in the form of coronal mass ejections and in magnetic field fluctuations. It turns out that these phenomena affect the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth's surface, which in turn, influences the global temperature. So there appears to be a mechanism that could account for changes in the planet's average temperature. More study is necessary, and will be done. Sadly, it's getting very difficult for the 'carbon theory refusniks' to get funding for their research, since the powers that be have decided that the public must 'know' that global warming is due to their profligate emission of carbon dioxide into the air.

The question that then rears its persistent head demanding an answer is 'Why are we being fed with the powerful propaganda that 'we' are causing the problem that threatens the survival of the human race?' And the immediate subsidiary question: 'Who is behind this obvious fraud?' Those are provocative questions, and not easy ones. The usual place to begin is to ask 'who benefits from this fraud?' It's not very obvious. Certain industries (many) will suffer if serious efforts are made to limit carbon emissions... while others (a few) will benefit. The nuclear power industry, languishing after decades of suspicion in the wake of some high-profile disasters, is being promoted as the only sensible alternative to 'dirty energy.' Already the price of uranium is rising on the markets in anticipation of a boom to come.

But one of the main effects of the 'war against carbon' is less obvious to the common Western observer-- it is the impoverishment of the 'Third World,' particularly Africa. If poor countries are discouraged from exploiting their coal, petroleum, and forest resources as sources of energy, where does that leave them? Alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power, are much more expensive than hydrocarbons. The war on global warming relegates the poorest regions of the world to continued, abject poverty and servitude to the wealthy nations. Even within the developed nations, it is well known that a quick reduction in carbon emissions would entail widespread and deep economic misery... but for whom? Of course, it would hit the poorest segment of the population hardest. Petroleum will become more expensive, meaning virtually all consumer products will have to increase in cost as transportation costs rise. Jobs will be lost as production from 'dirty industries' will have to decrease (at least in the adjustment period) and as companies cut corners to cover the cost of new technologies. Vehicles will become more expensive, as will all travel. The 'CO2 agenda' will certainly accelerate the widening of the gap between rich and poor... and that seems to be one of the objectives of this fraud.

I expect that time will reveal who is backing the war on carbon, and why. Meanwhile, it is truly frightening to see how a fraudulent idea, even in the realm of science-- which is supposed to be based on 'objective observation'-- can be promoted from a minority opinion into a public relations steamroller. This is a chilling demonstration of... what?-- the power of the media? Well, partly; but moreso the power of the shadowy individuals who control the media, and use it to make the masses think whatever these overlords want them to think. That is scary!

Yet there may be other, sinister motives behind this big carbon-dioxide scare. The powers behind the scenes are experts at reaping profits from any kind of instability, and this is another 'golden' opportunity for them. Also, keeping the public preoccupied with a 'natural' menace that creates a background level of constant tension supports efforts to control them. People are more amenable to the 'snake oil salesman' when they are already physically and mentally stressed. Another fuzzy, external, omnipresent threat to augment the 'terrorism threat' is ideal for those who are setting us up for the quick fix-- martial law, or some variation. There's another possibility: if the good folks can be convinced that the problem is 'local' (Earth-based) they will not be inclined to look towards the sun, either literally or figuratively, and the sun may be concealing the source of the problem. Did I mention that Mars and other planets in our cosmic neighborhood are also exhibiting signs of 'global warming' of their own? It's that observation that makes the whole picture very curious indeed. For if all the planets are experiencing some kind of energy disturbance, it would implicate, first of all, the sun. As to what is causing the sun's outbursts, it might be a periodic process (as geological records seem to support), or it may be related to the moving of the entire solar system into a different region of the galaxy, as some suggest. In any case, these planetary effects essentially rule out 'cosmic ray deflection' as an adequate explanation for climate change.

I spent a couple days pondering the question, 'Why do 'they' (TPTB) want us to blame atmospheric CO2 for the undeniable climate change taking place?' Then I caught a few minutes of a CBC TV news story on the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) meeting of May, 2007, and something jumped out at me. The story ended by showing computer animations of some proposals that were aired at the conference. The video showed a bunch of discs thrown up above the Earth, grouped tightly in orbit to reflect sunlight back into space. Then another image appeared of what looked like an aerosol spray, intended to do the same, while the voice over talked about some 'far-out ideas'. As soon as I saw the secondary effect of these far-out schemes, I was immediately struck by what the game really is, here. You see, if reflective devices were to be placed in orbit ostensibly to reduce the incident sunlight on the Earth's surface, they would also have the effect of screening our view of the sun. Why would 'they' want to obscure our view of the sun, you wonder? Well, I still remain somewhat skeptical regarding the 'Planet X' theory... BUT, the proponents claim that 'X' will soon be visible in the environs of the sun! Could it be that the conspirators do not want the vast majority of ordinary folk to see this phenomenon, and start connecting the dots? The dots in this case will sketch a picture of colossal deception aimed at keeping people blissfully ignorant of an impending global catastrophe, while the elite make elaborate preparations for their personal (and exclusive) survival.

Yes, it's an outrageous scenario, I agree. Yet, once again (as per '911' and the Iraq war) the media have been co-opted to paint black as white, a panel of 'international experts' has been assembled to do the artful persuasion, a high-profile shill is going around the world beating the drum to the grass-roots folks, and anyone who bucks the new, official voice of reason, is ridiculed, marginalized, and forced to use the alternative media. It has the paw-prints of the Illuminati all over it; and we have a plausible motive. I expect that things will continue to unfold rapidly. Climate change is the harbinger of momentous events just ahead of us. Earth has a date with destiny, and we are all invited, like it or not. Regardless of what our authorities do about carbon emissions, the heating of the planet will continue... and quickly.

We are truly living in interesting times... interesting as per the Chinese curse. Stay alert; but there's no point feeling guilty about the family SUV anymore.

No comments:

Post a Comment