Regardless of the intentions of environmental activists and their shoes, “climate change” has been hijacked by big business, governments, power elites, and the Green Parties. The likes of Al Gore have made tens of millions from it – and these people still jet about like there is no tomorrow.
The brokers of Climate Change Agendas push the line that people are responsible for global warming, and this requires the taxing and controlling of hapless populations. [How convenient!] This also creates huge disadvantages for developing countries that are dissuaded from using fossil fuels to advance their economies.
We are made to feel guilty, and this allows “power structures” to take advantage of the people, while activists even applaud the control and the restrictions. So whom to trust in this debacle that is now the climate religion?
The history of humans
And those people who say humans do not have an effect — well — humans have changed the globe in many devastating ways. And more recently much of the destruction has been done by corporate entities with no regard to future generations.
There are seven billion of us, and we are part of this huge “system” where everything affects everything else.
If we look back into history to see how society has been influenced and controlled, it is clear that “elites” have been trying to control the resources and people of the world for centuries – possibly millennia.
Nothing has changed. And it is true (as Norm Sauer says), “If government can control carbon, it can capture our wealth and control our lives.”
Of course the “elites” are planning to control everything. They will use anything and everything to maintain power – from taxes to terrorism. We need to pause and ask whom we should trust.
Perspective and Time
Politicians and even scientists often refer to only decades (e.g., this decade is hotter and cooler than the last one). But to debate climate and our impact, we need to view historically as to how homo sapiens has treated the environment.
I found Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, fascinating. Yes, humans make choices regarding their environment – good and bad – but it is generational transformation that is possibly our undoing. The changes are slow, and following generations adapt to what they see and have, and as a result we have no perspective of the slow changes.
Diamond uses Easter Island as a principal example of man’s inability to manage the environment. Records demonstrate deforestation, and depletion of species and food-sources. Other (fringe) authors claim the deforestation was as the result of rats, but the example of Easter Island is a warning. This is an extract describing Hancock’s book (here):
“Easter Island was settled perhaps around the 900s when it had an abundance of trees, game, fish and shell fish… When the Dutch explorer Jacob Rovveveen arrived in 1722 he found no trees over ten feet tall. Without big trees there was no wood for making canoes – canoes with harpooning platforms for taking porpoises and tuna on the open sea. Fish were now caught only in the shallow waters. Deforestation had led to soil erosion by rain and wind. Compost for agriculture was no longer available. Land birds had disappeared. Shellfish had been over-exploited and people instead were eating small black snails. Over-hunting had decreased the availability of small animals. When Captain Cook arrived in 1774 he found the islanders “small, lean, timid and miserable.” People were still growing food but there had not been enough to sustain their numbers. Starvation and cannibalism had appeared.
Diamond does not believe that Easter Islanders were exceptionally foolish. Easter Island was more vulnerable to bad choices than were some other islands in the Pacific…”
Carl Sagan put human survival into perspective with, “Extinction is the rule, survival is the exception.” The question we face is: Is the earth vulnerable to our bad choices? we are making some exceptionally bad choices.
To those in the alternative media who say we have little or no influence on climate, I disagree. How much is human-induced or how much is GAIA doing her thing is debatable – but really we are “screwing” with one amazing system.
Making sense of the science
I remember when I was doing an Honours in Botany and Ecology in the 1970s, I was disheartened at the rate of deforestation. We were taught that the great forests were the lungs of GAIA. The elimination of huge tracks of forest and their unique systems (and species) were apparently decimated for profit. It has only got worse since then, as humans have become more efficient in the “art of decimation.”
I believe the present debate – of ice sheets, air temperatures, of scientists vs scientists, believers vs skeptics have become sidetracked by the same people and governments that are destroying the environment. How do we sort this mess when scientists can’t agree?
Take the Antarctic ice sheet for example. For a decade or more we have heard from scientists who say it is shrinking and melting. Even last night on Foreign Correspondent (ABC) there was a program on warming and how the Antarctic ice sheet was melting and breaking up. The ABC program interviewed Professor Pete Convey – a British ecologist who has apparently spent 15 summers and one winter in the Antarctic.
This extract (from ABC’s Southern Exposure program here):
“CAMPBELL (narration): The average annual temperature on the peninsula has risen 2.8 degrees in 50 years – that’s the biggest rise in the southern hemisphere and a sign of what the future could hold.
PROF. PETER CONVEY: It’s like we have a very complicated system, we’ve pushed it beyond the bounds of what it’s done naturally in the last at least several million years. We have essentially knocked the global climate system out of kilter and I would say rightly we should be very scared about what’s going to happen to humans.”
But look at this report (3 November 2015) in The Australian quoting NASA:
“Antarctica is gaining more ice than it is losing and is helping to slow the rise in global sea levels, a NASA study suggests.
The findings contradict claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice for the past two decades. The ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tonnes of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. The net gain slowed to 82 billion tonnes per year from 2003 to 2008.”
Maybe this explains it:
“The most common misconception regarding Antarctic sea ice is that sea ice is increasing because it’s cooling around Antarctica. The reality is the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing… from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade.”
A few years ago I was hired as a director for the Africa episode of a climate series. I had the privilege of travelling back to Africa and interview many scientists working in the field. At a research station in the middle of the Namib desert, Professor Richard Washington described how the earth’s precession (causing the angle of the sun to change over thousands of years) slowly changes the climate of (sub-Saharan) Africa – back and forth – over the millennia.
I spoke to scientists studying the Agulhas Current. They seemed to have no agenda and were just excited about the transformations in their data – either way. Ocean currents redistribute much of the heat around the globe, so the thawing of the Arctic – for example – could disturb warming currents in the Atlantic Ocean and lead to land mass cooling in Northern Europe. But the The Agulhas Current, too, pushes warm salty water from the Indian ocean, around the bottom of South Africa (my original home) into the Atlantic. Were this to stop (which it has briefly in the past) this could also change the climate in Northern Europe (possibly cooling it).
“Global warming” or “climate change” cannot be measured accurately by ice sheet expansion, or air temperatures. The system – the globe – is continually adjusting to imbalances, and warming seas and warming tundra may result in some very unexpected future events. And we still have to understand how earth is affected by changes in the sun and galaxy.
There are dire predictions to mankind if and when the sea levels rise by one metre. But let me put sea rise into perspective.
100 metre rise in sea water
Forget one metre rise – what about 100. Let us again reflect to the not so distant past to generations before us.
Researcher Graham Hancock in his book Underworld writes graphically about events not so long ago:
“Between 17,000 years ago and 7000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, terrible things happened to the world our ancestors lived in. Great ice caps over northern Europe and north America melted down, huge floods ripped across the earth, sea-level rose by more than 100 metres, and about 25 million square kilometres of formerly habitable lands were swallowed up by the waves, with a wall of ice 1 kilometre high.”
Underwater pyramids of Yonaguni (Japan)
I say we have no idea what is in store for us. And so I believe we should treat our environment as respectfully as possible, in the hope that it allows our survival as a species.
Respect for the environment
Why not migrate to cleaner energy? Who wants to live in a smogged up city. California’s solar industry employs more than 55,000 people – more than Twitter, Google, Facebook and Apple combined. And why not stop fracking the frack out of our lands and poisoning the water?
Powerful corporations have also bought thousands of innovative patents – and are suppressing them for a later date.
Paris is all about control.
What we need to do is expose those people, leaders and organisations who protect the crimes – like the 9/11 event. We need to vote out politicians who do the bidding of corporations. Then maybe we can have a honest debate about the climate.
We also need to be talking about over fishing, species loss, deforestation and pollution.
We don’t have that much control over the climate – but we can begin immediately by respecting the earth, and start cleaning up our act – otherwise in 2074 – Captain Alien Cook will arrive to planet earth and find humans “small, lean, timid and miserable.”