The media has whipped up such frenzy around this magical term “Global Warming” that people without a scientific bent of a mind tend to ignore the vital role that sun with its sun spots and its solar winds, the cosmic dust and the normal climate mechanism have been playing in determining the climate and consider global warming as the sole factor responsible for the climate change.
When a certain section of scientists tried to point out this huge bias towards global warming, they were either ignored or faced ostracism from their own community of scientists who viewed them as killers of the golden goose. Some even received death threats and were branded as cohorts to the multinational companies that were in the dock for violating / exploiting the environment. Some were simply ignored.
Climate change with respect to global warming is a huge money spinner, attracting billions of dollars in funding. And where the money is, you can bet your life on it that media hype would be there like a shadow. With so many jobs and livelihoods being dependent on this mass hysteria known as “Global Warming”, who would dare to kill the golden goose.
Increase in man made CO2 levels has been termed the main catalyst resulting in global warming. What media and certain scientific community blatantly ignores or fails to highlight is that the composition of CO2 with respect to other gases in the atmosphere is very small to cause / affect a climate change on its own. And moreover, the ratio of CO2 emitted due to human activities against the CO2 emitted naturally is miniscule. But the proponents of global warming have been screaming their voices to hoarse that it’s the man made emissions of CO2 is the one responsible for the drastic climate change.
Scientists have analyzed the ice-cores obtained by drilling into the ice at the poles and have been able to accurately pinpoint the atmospheric composition of the micro-environment that existed a long time ago. They have very clearly said that the levels of CO2 were pretty normal and in no way were responsible or affected the temperature as pointed out by some popular documentaries showing a temperature versus the level of CO2 graph. Instead they have conclusive proof to show the role played by the sun spots and the cosmic dust affecting the temperature, thus being responsible for the climate change.
Proponents of global warming have pointed that change in ocean currents as a direct effect of global warming. What they fail to see or blatantly ignore is that these oceanic systems usually take hundreds of years to change and the changes that we are seeing now is probably due something that happened hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago there was no such thing as global warming!
I can go on ranting against global warming, but people reading this piece of diatribe would lose their interest. Let us believe and reinforce our trust in “Nature” and leave it to her to figure out this climate change. Climate change is not in our hands. That’s the ultimate truth no matter how hollow, bitter or unbelievable it might sound.
Instead, let’s focus on what is in our control. Stop the destruction of rainforests. Prevent the extinction of both animal and plant species. Let’s put technology to good use, prevent further degradation of our environment. Let’s reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and look for feasible alternatives. I would leave it you to fill in the rest.
But most importantly, let us stop pressurizing the under-developed, poor countries to adopt solar and wind as alternative sources of energy. It’s cruel and unfair to expect these countries to build a steel factory that would run on solar or wind energy. It is impossible. Let us offer them the chance to use conventional sources of energy and improve their economy and their standard of living.
Did I forget to mention the numerous carbon offset programmes that have sprouted over the internet? As far as I am concerned this is one among the popular ways to play on human guilt and swindle money. I seriously do not believe in offsetting one’s carbon footprint by donating money to these unscrupulous sites that promise to plant trees on our behalf. Instead, if one is really racked by guilt then I would suggest that person to plant a tree somewhere nearby, nurture it. It would really warm the cockles of that person’s heart to see the sapling grow in front of his eyes and erase any guilt that he has harbored in this heart.
The theory of man made global warming is now so firmly entrenched, the voices of opposition is effectively silenced; it seems invincible, untroubled by any contrary evidence no matter how strong. The global warming alarm is now beyond reason.
A short documentary written and directed by Martin Durkin for Channel 4, A wag TV production gave wings to my beliefs and opened my eyes to the greatest hoax that was ever told: Global Warming.
Author
Rightly so Rakesh, thats a good point you made that has hit right at the heart of Global Warming.... The thing is that we have been unduly glorifying Global Warming, but truly its the Climate Change that is what we need to worry. My doubts on GW was cleared with a discussion with scientists at IISc (CES), Pondicherry University and University of Madras who were of the opinion that Global Warming is a farce, instead we need to concentrate on Climate Change that is happening due to increasing GHG that is increasing due to unplanned anthropogenic and industrial activities. The correct scientific terminology to GW is Peripheral Warming, a term that is currently researched by the three institutes that is causing the melting of polar ice caps and the rather unwanted side effects like,irregular rainfall, floods, loss of coastal lands to increase of sea level and cyclones (Katrina, Gustav) that has already lashed. West Virginia and the Mexico coastline and many more to come. This is the right time we set aside Global Warming and work to delete the effects caused by Peripheral Warming and Climate Change... Gr8 article boss!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAn error (where you give unessacary cred to the global warming proponents).
ReplyDeleteYou write: "Proponents of global warming have pointed that change in ocean currents as a direct effect of global warming."
There are two completely different arguments about ocean currents.
First we have AMO and PDO, and the AGW proponents has rejected these arguments from the very best oceanographs. Chris Landsea was rejected by IPCC, because this induces problems for CO2-climate models.
Secondly AGW proponents often suggests that anthropogenic global warming may stop or slow down the North Atlantic thermohaline current ("the Gulf Stream"). The Real Climate guy Gavin Schmidt made a model for this, where the current soon will reduces its speed by 50 percent. But there is almost no oceanograph who think there is any likelihood that anything like that would happen! Carl Wunsch has been very clear that the suggestion itself is nothing but BS (e.g. in this article.) Kerr, Bryden and other world leading oceanographs has the same critics against that idea, and there is actually no dispute about this among the real scientists. But "AGW scientists" (e.g. politicians or computer people with their models), journalist Mark Lynas, Monbiot and "the whole universe" of alarmists claim that the slow down of "th Gulf Stream" is a problem.
At best an unbelievable stupid reality show...
I made this coment because you refer to ocean currents as a cause of global warming, and the critics of bad AGW science are those who suggest that natural ocean current change are involved in climate change. The AGW folks sais that change i currents will cause cooling. Not warming. (This is why I had to comment that paragraph.)
(Your note, in the same paragraph, about "hundreds of years [for the oceans] to change" I find as stupid try-to-be-a-scientist words. It's not relevant because the argument is wrong in the first place, and it's scientificaly and logically completely unclear BS.)
Otherwise a very well written and very good article!!! Which is why I made this comment. ;-)
-
(Generally you may also use the phrase "anthropogenic global warming" when you refer to the hysteria. Not just "global warming". No one deny global warming in the 20th century. On the other hand most AGW proponents seems to use "global warming" as a synonymous to anthropogenic global warming, so that might be an argument to use the words you use. But it can creates confusion, which I think one shall avoid.)
@ Magnus
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the goof-up, should have done a bit more research. But that was really informative and I really appreciate your comment
@ Arunava
Thanks buddy, finally we agree on something, especially after that huge row we had over the IM.