Climate Change And A Convenient Untruth - Part 6

The Scaremongers: Why believe them? They have a record of prediction failure

In the previous parts to this investigation we've looked at the arguments put forward by both the Scaremongers and the Idealists. The reason why there's more emphasis on the position of the Scaremongers is that the onus is on them to prove their theory. So far they've produced no sound evidence for that nor have they answered their critics.

In spite of the failed climate change theory of the 70s when many eminent scientists were predicting a colder future for the world, the 'Yes' case scientists and others cannot come up with any plausible data to emphatically prove their present position. They believe that if the UN says so, then it must be right, ignoring the fact that the UN has time and time again proved that it's completely out of its depth when it comes to dealing with serious issues.

The major points the Scaremongers won't address

1) By general scientific consensus there has been at least 12 major periods of climate during the life of the earth. All have been part of the earth's natural life cycle. That being the case, why should the present period of global warming (if proven to be true) be anything other than a continuation of past events caused by Nature? If the first 12 were caused by Nature, why should the 13th be caused by man?

2) The UN in their reports on global warming skim over the huge contribution to the increase in greenhouse gases by the under-developed countries - deforestation and population growth. Why?

3) The 'Yes' people insist that global warming has been going on for at least a century, possibly 150 years. What they can't tell us is if this is unusual. They just don't have any figures to suggest that nothing like this has ever happened before. In fact the current figures of world temperature cannot be compared to the figure of 50 years ago because of the more sophisticated instruments in use today. So how can a comparison be made with figures from the 1850s or further back in time?

4) Scientists supporting the 'Yes' case point to the increase in carbon dioxide over the past 50 years. What does this mean? How does it compare to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? They just don't know with any degree of certainty. So they cannot really say whether the earth is on the verge of a climatic crisis or whether Nature is just making the sort of minor adjustment that's been made since time began.

5) The Scaremongers base their whole argument on the theory that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in world-wide temperatures. They have yet to explain the situation that occurred between 1940 and 1975 when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, but temperatures throughout the world declined.

6) History has shown that melting of the ice-caps, and the lowering and raising of the snow-line of mountain ranges has been occurring from time to time. There is nothing unusual about the current melting of the polar regions - so why do the Scaremongers predict the worst because of this?

For a better understanding of the Scaremongers' position
In the days of primitive man it was common for unusual natural phenomena to be accorded a special place in their lives. Early man didn't know what caused rain, so they invented there own reason. They ascribed it to the work of a Rain God. There was a god of thunder, fire, a god who controlled eclipses, a god for everything.

Today man doesn't know why the earth's temperature is rising, if indeed it has been rising. So like early man, they come up with a theory that seemingly may answer their questions but bears no relevance to reality.

Now into this intellectual vacuum created by the 'Yes' people steps the sort of person who cannot resist making this issue a personal crusade. Enter a politician, or should I say a failed politician. Enter Al Gore, the champion global warming theorist.

A man who thinks he has the power to halt and then reverse the work of Nature, or for the religious person, God, Allah, Jehovah etc. A man who thinks he's on a divine mission to help people saves themselves from themselves. A man who uses all sorts of lies, subterfuge, distortions to get his theory accepted. A man appealing to the gullible nature of people. A man using his political skill to deceive and distort. A politician being a politician.

In situations of uncertainty, being fearful of what may happen in the future, most people will grasp at anything that points the way to safety. And so it is with the theory that we're all doomed unless we make radical changes to our way of life. In situations such as this, some politicians will always seek to gain an electoral advantage.

Pressured by minority interest groups that want their positions accepted, politicians feel compelled to give the electorate what they want. Instead of leading from the front, politicians are more than happy to jump on the band wagon driven by the media. Power hungry politicians are at the vanguard of this controversial theory. And on the flimsiest of data, they could bring economic disaster on the world, because the remedial actions they propose will involve the expenditure of vast amounts of money. Money that could be spent to fix some of the more serious problems of the world.

The major issue the Idealists have about the incessant and unproven warnings from those who believe implicitly in the theory of man-made global warming is that this is not the most important threat to the future of mankind.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

That position is held by the threat of the declining sperm count of males in western countries. This is a problem of such magnitude that it has the ability to devastate the world's population within a few generations.