Global Warming: All Smoke, Little Fire and No heat

Weeks after BP had the oil spill, those strongly advocating for the green movement have been on their toes waiting, watching and hoping for governments across the industrialized world to introduce new restrictions on fossil fuels. “These fuels are warming up our planet and making it uninhabitable for future generations” it is said. Oil-rigs, where a good percentage of oil is retrieved are the scene of many human casualties and much environmental damage. If the resurrection of Christ was a sign for non-believers in the Christian faith, then the damage caused by the oil spill was a sign to environmentalists that fossils are as devilish as they have always claimed they are. And aren’t environmentalists entitled to believe this considering that California has, since the 1980’s experienced an increased asthma prevalence of 75%? These attacks are related to the air pollution in the area. I too empathise with environmentalists: coal and oil seem to be devil sent. Coal mine accidents are among the most common in engineering. Oil at some stage in 2008 had reached $145 per barrel. Visibility in Beijing has deteriorated due to their high levels of air pollution. At some stage over the past decade China was building two power stations every week. That means China could electrify South Africa within a year. OPEC countries in 2007 earned about $550 billion in oil exports; in 1998 the same amount of oil would have earned them $110 billion. With the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East or Persian gulf after the war on terror, there has been a rise in the number of students in rogue religious schools and mosques that preach this anti-West sentiment. These are the same students that graduate under Islam extremist propaganda and join the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Where is the funding to accommodate them coming from you might be thinking. $550 billion is a good enough budget. So let’s recap fossil fuel consequences and results: asthma, death of marine life, poor visibility, large costs, dangerous working conditions and terrorism. But should we add climate  warming to the fossil fuels charge sheet and prove that without a reasonable doubt (which is true science) the use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming? Al Gore, Obama and several other scientists believe so. According to Al Gore more than 90% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. An inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) published a report claiming that carbon emissions or green house gas emissions are warming our planet. After reading “Bring on the Media Tribunal”  by Mugabe Ratshikuni on our website last week, I got a new sense of  the importance of critically evaluating the structures we have, their intentions and flaws. This  is critically important and failure to do so could be dangerous for society. Just like SANEF, the IPCC is at liberty to publish whatever they deem fit and it is often treated as fact and entered into the anals of  history. Currently the belief is that the carbon dioxide released as a bi-product of fossil fuels is trapping the sun’s radiation reflected by the earth, thus causing a warming effect. This warming effect has been causing unpredictable changes to our weather patterns and climate. • Sadly what isn’t said about the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature rising is that, the temperature rises then only after many years (not weeks) do the carbon dioxide levels increase. So carbon dioxide cannot cause the warming. • If the world is warming then the poles should be losing ice, this sadly is not the case, the reverse is actually happening, polar bear populations are increasing and ocean temperatures are dropping. Glaciers in Alaska are advancing and some in Greenland are even stabilizing. • The temperature increases recorded in recent years are caused by an increase in solar activity. This can be determined by the number of sun spots visible at a certain area of the sun. NASA  fully backs this investigation and so are several other MIT scientists. • The IPCC report was not interrogated as vigorously as one would like. Not only does this document lack the support of the number of scientists it had initially planned to have, but those that edited the report weren’t even scientists at all. Several scientists that were on the panel to review this report voluntarily stepped down as they did not agree see it as scientifically accurate. • As much as Al Gore (in his over-glorified slide show) showed areas of drought and flaming temperatures around the world (which is bound to happen from time to time – deserts came before the use of oil), several countries like Vietnam, India, Australia and China recently recorded their coldest temperatures and he failed to mention that. So if the science of global warming has more holes than hooker stockings, why is it that the published scientists would support such a theory? Well, governments give out grants and funding and governments are in their nature political. This makes the process of selecting topics for funding purely political. In South Africa for example I am more likely to receive funding for HIV research than for research on Stem cells. HIV is higher up the priority list of president Zuma than Stem cell research. With the growing popularity of green-talk and the dumb-founded moral alignment to being able to talk green, western governments have “Greening the world” at the top of their priority list. So if you save the planet there is fame, fortune and maybe a Nobel Prize for you. Al Gore won the Nobel Prize  whilst nominated in the same category as Irena Sendle. This is a 91 year old polish woman who saved the lives of 2500 children during the holocaust in the Warsaw Ghetto by smuggling them away from the Nazis. If global warming can get me a Nobel Prize over a noble woman with noble achievments like  Irena Sendle, why wouldn’t I join the movement and ignore the science? Whilst refering to the science of global warming a Nobel winner said. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson While fossil fuels have admittedly caused a lot of damage and irresponsibility among us, it has not warmed the planet. I personally would not enjoy getting  asthma if I were to go to California, nor would I enjoy having poor visibility if I went to Beijing, I love fish and for these reasons I am an advocate for renewable energies. But since no funding has come my way, it is hard to ignore the science. Girls are hot, global warming is not

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar