Sun Driven Climate Change versus Human-induced Carbon Emissions Driven Climate Change.
“Many people would rather die that think. In fact, they do.”
-Bertrand Russell
(1872-1970)
If our weather forecasters cannot predict accurately what our weather will be over a short period of time, how then can anyone predict the climate pattern for the future, whether it will be warmer or cooler in five years time or ten years time? However, lay people know what they have experienced over their life time and can say categorically that there are cyclical patterns in the weather. The scientist may be able to go back millions of years and confirm by the many methods and practices of dating the warming and cooling, that these changes in the climate are cyclical. Therefore, one must rely on scientific research into past over a long period of time instead of only on the recent recordings of temperature stations that are generally positioned on 30% of the earth’s surface that ism in urban areas, often near airports, and none over the remaining 70% that is water. Mainly for that reason, one must read Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science (2009). After reading this book, a scientific study documented with 2311 footnotes, by Professor Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide, I posit what follows for debate.
IT is a scientific fact that bacteria, algae and plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and water. The CO2 emissions are dissolved naturally in the atmosphere of air and water. Plants, etc. receive their Co2 from rainwater as well as air. It is therefore, not only incorrect, but also political spin to speak of ‘carbon pollution. The soil, for example, contains more carbon than all living matter does.
In 2008, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water, Ms Penny Wong, published a Green paper which contained the opening sentence “Carbon pollution is causing climate change, resulting in higher temperatures, more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather.” Apparently the Minister lives on air. She must, otherwise she would pollute her body everyday with the carbon-based food she eats. If she were serious about carbon pollution, she would, for a start, stop eating. Carbon dioxide, for instance, puts the fizz into soft drinks, the holes in the loaf of bread, the bubbles in beer and sparkling wines. Carbon dioxide is food for plants. Indeed, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on earth.
So it is with arrogance that we are n\told almost daily by economists (e.g. Ross Gaunaut, Nicholas Stern), politicians, actors and ‘bleeding hearts’ that we mere humans can control the climate changes that are scientifically known to be cyclical, by reducing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (Co2). When we are told that at the present rate 186 billion tonnes of Co2 that enters the earth’s atmosphere each year, it is a scientific fact (1) that most of this is from natural sources, and (2) that is often not revealed, human activities generate only 3.3% of the 186 Billion tonnes. The obscuring of such critical and relevant facts in the presentation of information appears to have been deliberate in view of the scare mongering.
It appears that those who are flogging climate-change-that-is-caused-by-the-human-induced-carbon-dioxide, are in the process of creating an industry that will storm the world, if major governments could be persuaded to force the carbon trading scheme down the throats of their people. The fact of the matter is, that no matter how much carbon taxes our Australian community ends up paying, it will not make rain fall on the Murray-Darling basin, which has ‘died the death of a hundred Government plans’. The same cabal of governments that could not solve that regional problem now claim, once they are in office, that they can change the global climate!
That climate change is caused by human-induced carbon dioxide is an extraordinary claim one that must require extraordinary evidence, yet that evidence is not forthcoming. Those flogging such a claim include Al Gore, former Vice-President of the U.S.A., who has been travelling around the world, either in person, or in the form of his film An Inconvenient Truth, shown on both the big and small screens. At the rate big business and the mainstream media have been jumping onto the bandwagon, one can almost be sure that while the claim is probably a money-making myth, it is certainly not a dead horse.
The variability of ultra-violet radiation from the sun not only has an impact on ozone production (and hence, the hole in the ozone layer0, but also affects global temperatures. It is beyond reasonable imagination for the proponents of human-induced climate change to think that the inhabitants of this third planet from the sun, can exercise primary control over our earthly climate patterns, when one looks at the big picture of a family of orbiting planets held together by the gravity of one star we call the Sun. The solar system is so called, because our sun is the centre of the brood of eight major planets orbiting around it. Such a massive energy power-source that is the sun, has the fundamental control over minuscule earth including its climate. For the purpose of comparison, a train moving at 60 60miles per hour, day and night, would take five years to traverse the sun’s circumference. The sun with its cosmic rays in generating clouds on earth ultimately controls out climate…even if to this day, we do not understand completely and exactly its workings. A very slight change of the activities on the surface of the sun has profound and far-reaching effects on the earth’s environment, including its climate.
These homo sapiens who claim otherwise need to rethink the agenda that is now carefully hidden from general public view by their earth-centered, if not pre-Copernican, perspective. The media gives away the game by almost daily doses of negative, if not alarmist, stories of human-induced global warming were allowed to continue. Here Carolyn Heilburn, the American social critic, hit the nail squarely on the head when she said in 1998: “Power consists to a large extent in deciding what stories will be told.” The media virtually ignored in all the while, the fact that the colourless, tasteless and non-toxic gas that is carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Also ignored, is the likely economic impact of the introduction of the new-fangled ‘carbon-emission/trading’ scheme; the current inequality among the people within Australia and worldwide will worsen with the rich becoming even richer and the poor becoming even poorer.
With the Rudd Government trying to precipitate a vote on its legislation on the carbon emission/trading scheme by accusing the minor parties in the Senate of filibuster, it is time that more Australians pay more attention to the forlorn voices in the wilderness like Plimer’s and become better informed to engage in the debate. For it is not too far fetched to say that carbon dioxide is more basic to life than sex.
A current fallacy exists for instance where you may see some of our large Power Generating Stations emitting smoke like fumes from their chimneys, we are now being told by the expert political spin doctors that this is carbon dioxide [ CO2 ]. In fact it is steam consisting of minute droplets of water [ H2O ] which is from the cooling water process used during production of electrical energy.
H.C. Jagers [Geologist]