Posts Tagged ‘CHANGE’
The UK government is under attack by debt campaigners as well as developing countries, for their plan to give £800 million to poorer countries in preparation for climate change, as a great bulk of the money would be in the form of loans, not grants, and would be sent via the World Bank instead of the UN.
Martin Khor, director of Third World Network, a grouping of international development agencies based in Malaysia believes; “The decision to deliver climate aid in the form of loans and not grants contradicts internationally agreed principles”
These principles clearly define that developed countries should take the main responsibility for fighting climate change, due to their massive role in creating the pollution that is being blamed for it’s occurance, as well as their more advanced technological and economic capabilities.
Khor also felt the money had to be sent through that UN as:
“Developing countries have repeatedly argued that any proposed funds for climate change, particularly in such significant amounts, should come under the direction of the state parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Martin Khor, director of Third World Network, a grouping of international development agencies based in Malaysia believes; “The decision to deliver climate aid in the form of loans and not grants contradicts internationally agreed principles”
“The World Bank’s climate investment funds could undermine the UN’s negotiations for climate change aid,” Khor argued. “It creates parallel structures for financing climate change adaptation and mitigation outside the existing multilateral structures and within a process dominated by the G8 countries.”
The unproven theory of man-made global warming and its related issues presented by both those who believe in this theory – the Scaremongers - and those who don’t – the Idealists – are the subject of much international controversy. Looking at the Scaremonger’s position the question needs to be asked: are they scientifically ignorant, or are they engaged in deception?
The whole position and argument put forward by the ‘Yes’ case to support their position comes from data collected over the past 50 years. This data is then compared with data collected since the 1890s – when world-wide climatic data first became of interest to scientists – and from the changes a wholly unrealistic assumption is made.
There are two major issues with this:
Firstly, the instruments and equipment used today to measure such factors as air temperature, sea temperature etc. are considerably more accurate than those in use 50 years ago, let alone 110 years ago. So that raises the question – how accurate is any data collected more than 10 years ago? The ‘Yes’ case needs to clarify this point.
The second issue concerns the number of years over which the current data has been collected. 110 years may provide a start, but it’s nowhere near long enough from which to predict the future . Realistically though, 110 years in comparison to the scientifically recognized age of the earth - 4.5 billion years – is meaningless.
To get a valid and significant understanding of the recent changes in the worlds’ temperature – if indeed there has been any abnormal changes - and to try to determine future trends in the area of climate change, the absolute minimum period from which such data is collected should be no less than a thousand years.
Of course this is not possible, but it doesn’t give the ‘Yes’ case the right to give credibility to the limited data they have by suggesting something that can’t be proven. All this approach does is give ammunition to the emotionally immature.
Whilst all of this may point to an incorrect and highly contentious interpretation of the available facts, the role of the UN could be considered as blatant deception.
Recent reports issued by the UN’s committee on man-made climate change laid the blame for this perceived problem clearly at the feet of the industrial western world. Two reports presented in early 2007 pointed to the damage being caused by the burning of fossil fuels leading to an increase in greenhouse gases, and an imbalance between the CO2 and oxygen in the worlds’ atmosphere. The UN said quite clearly that this problem was caused by the ever-increasing expansion of industrial activity by the established western nations and the emerging industrial countries, notably China and India.
The other factors that could be responsible for this atmospheric imbalance – factors that could have a profound influence – were not mentioned at all or were given little attention.
Firstly no mention was made of the practice prevalent in third world countries of mass deforestation by burning thus emitting carbon dioxide into the air. Trees and plants emit oxygen and take in CO2 and therefore play a critical role in helping to keep in balance the relationship between these two gases.
The other factor the UN failed to mention was the explosion in the worlds’ population over the past 50 years. In that time world population has grown from 2 billion to over 6 billion and third world countries have been responsible for the greater part of this.
If the increase in greenhouse gases has been caused by man’s activities then all of man’s actions should be taken into account. The UN do themselves no justice by highlighting only the actions of the industrialized and emerging nations. If the UN is to enjoy any credibility on this issue, then it must mention that deforestation and an unregulated population explosion may also be to blame.
The Scaremongers insist that their proof is strong and convincing. That’s what they insist on, but closer examination shows otherwise. Most of the ‘proof’ they offer is weak and totally unconvincing.
Why do they continually repeat the lie that of the ten hottest years on record, six have occurred within the past 10 years? This has been seen to be false – it’s recently been reported that the 10 hottest years occurred before 1950, with the hottest decade being the 30s.
But what’s so important about the last 110 years, the number of years that climatic data has been collected? Now if those years had been the hottest in the last 1000 years, then that would have greater importance.
Why does the ‘Yes’ case refuse to ignore the one question that would give their theory credibility – what caused climate change in the 12 previous occasions it’s occurred during the life of the earth?
After 12 periods of climate change caused by Nature, why should the activities of man be responsible for present events?
And this last point raises a very interesting question – what gives the ‘Yes’ case the right to think they can reverse the work of Nature or God? What gives Al Gore and his like the right to think they can undo God’s work?
And why are the worlds’ religious leaders saying nothing about this?
This is a look at the international controversy concerning the cause of climate change, and an attempt to put some balance into the argument.
An article in the Washington Times recently discussed how skeptics of global warming are ‘treated like a pariah’. The article begins, ‘Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack – treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.’ The article cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change.
Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2004 found that, ‘Changes in the solar cycle – and solar output – are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.’
In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an New Zealand professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.” In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. James Roebuck, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Sweden, said that, ‘The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.’
Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming.
However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Franklin Kane, ‘the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.’ Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers?
Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear ‘stranded’ on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, ‘They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they’ve been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 miles)’ Professor Kane, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, ‘The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.’
Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, ‘People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue; it’s a moral issue.’
Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.
In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust.
In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Herald commenting on the report issued by the UN, Eileen Goodrich wrote, ‘Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’ This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.
With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Alistair Darling, has publicly called for a ‘new world order’ to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.
One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose ‘a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions’. Most people will hear this and think, ‘Good, polluters need to be taxed’. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, ‘The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay 1.30 pounds sterling a mile to drive on Britain’s busiest roads’. That is approximately $3.00 per mile.
A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, ‘a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about 1,500 pounds sterling a year for driving 19,000 miles.’ That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to ‘raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years’. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive.
This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, ‘Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey’. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, ‘Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps’, mirroring plans in the European Union.