Is the reason for “going green” to preserve life or to destroy it? I have heard and read a lot about whether global warming even exists, let alone its cause. My previous physics classes lead me to various questions.
First of all, if global warming does exist, then two specific laws of physics come to mind; energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With the advancement of technology I question why CO2 converters cannot be developed and placed into space whereby the ensuing carbon dioxide emissions can be turned back into the elements (carbon and oxygen) that comprise it. One would think that since the energy is not destroyed and an opposite reaction is eminent that modern scientists would be able to devise some way of capturing the CO2 and converting it with very little effort.
Secondly, it seems to me that all living things contribute to CO2 production. We are told that we need to get rid of cows and quit eating beef. Also remarks are being said that we need to control the population by limiting our offspring to two children per couple. Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the Great Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council disagrees with this position. Instead, Perkins argues that those who favor a reduction in global warming are actually seeking to promote abortion and same-sex marriage. I, for one, do not understand the purpose of preventing or destroying life in order to preserve it. If that is the solution to global warming, then “who” has the authority to determine who should live and who should not live?
Many politicians, including Al Gore, who advocate that preventing global warming is a serious moral issue, use more energy than the average citizen. I question if global warming is an important enough problem for which to kill, then why aren’t our political leaders leading by example and fulfilling their moral obligation? For whom are we saving the planet?
Thirdly, all this rhetoric makes me wonder if global warming even exists. And if it does what is its true cause? According to Tim Ball who has a PhD in climatology, various prominent scientists, who are not politically connected, do not believe that humans can cause climate change. Here is some of the comments from Tim Ball:
“Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: ‘the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.’ Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.” ( http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm )
Lord Christopher Monckton, writer and former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has scientifically demonstrated that global warming and its impending causes are a hoax. Lord Monckton has warned the peoples of Europe and the United States that the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit in December of 2009 will use ‘global warming’ hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world unelected ‘communist-style’ government with enormous powers. Here are some of the comments made by Lord Monckton:
“At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed – your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a “climate debt”, because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.
And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement’, Lord Monckton added.” ( http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/lord-monckton-global-warming-is-pretext.html )
I believe that the people have a right to know all the facts and decide for themselves the best way to approach impending problems. Who has the authority to speak on the people’s behalf without the people’s permission and the whole truth being revealed? Are our political leaders morally obligated to control and kill life in order to protect us? And do they know that they are to protect us in the true sense of the word?
I remember reading about Barrack Obama’s voting record on the issue of abortion and was startled to find out that he supported what I call an after-birth abortion. This occurs when a baby is born alive during an abortion procedure, and the baby is still killed even though there is a viable chance that the baby could make it. I also heard him say that he supports abortion because if his daughters were to make a mistake, he would not want them to be burdened with a baby.
Once again, I ask who has the authority to decide who should live and who should die? If global warming is truly an issue that requires a moral obligation to control population growth through destroying life, then why don’t the political leaders perform their moral duty and abort themselves? After all, they were elected and sworn in under an oath to represent and protect the people. Is it acceptable for “we the people” to determine who lives and who dies? I think not. In the same way, I don’t think it is acceptable for the people’s “employees” to make that decision either.