Our planet is no Arcadia

It wasn't long ago that anyone suggesting that climate warming was questionable didn't register a pulse with the public majority, but now that has changed. More and more people are challenging the dogma of the so-called climate Gurus, and for good reason.

With regard to climate warming, politicians are being misled, ecologists are being misled, scientists are being misled and the public is being misled. It is a chain reaction created by spurious science that is fostering unnecessary anxiety and wasting money that could well be spent on more critical matters. For instance, in the current issue of the French magazine "Geo", a questionnaire asked its readers what they thought the most threatening menace over the last 30 years was. The leading answer was global warming; second, with merely 30% of the readers, was terrorism.

As a further example of the hysteria generated by global warming alarmists, here is an article that recently
appeared in London's Telegraph:

"Global warming could cause the West Antarctic ice sheet to collapse, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels, scientists claim.... This could cause sea levels to rise by up to seven meters (23ft) within one to three thousand years, wiping out wildlife, flooding low-lying island and coastal areas and changing weather patterns by releasing fresh water into the sea."

The article is written in such a way as to suggest that wildlife will be wiped out and lowlands flooded by a some sudden cataclysmic inundation, where animals wouldn't have a chance to move inland to higher ground; when in fact, if it at all did happen, it would be a slow, gradual phenomenon over thousands of years giving plenty of time to make adjustments. Furthermore, sediment studies from the Antarctic floor show that the ice sheet did periodically collapse over a period of a million years yet the world endured.

Global warming would be a far more positive occurrence than global cooling would ever be. With the Artic ice pack shrinking it is a windfall for oil exploration and navigation just when it may be most required. The use of a northwest passage for transport would save incalculable amounts of energy in shipping and new oil fields would be an additional supply for ones further south that are nearing exhaustion.

In an era when weather forecasting can't even tell with any reliability what the weather will be in a weeks time, much less a month from now, how can people believe we will know the weather in the coming decades, or hundreds of years from now? Reliance on computer-generated estimations is as unreliable as the weather reports are today. All though the ages human history has been affected by major weather changes that lasted centuries and the human race ultimately survived.

We know that between the years 450 AD and 1000 the weather was far drier and warmer than it is today, allowing Vikings to navigate the generally calm seas all the way to Greenland and on to Canada. Should the present warming trend continue and amplify, Greenland could be green again and Canada would have a much longer growing season allowing more people to be fed. With no ice to threaten shipping great ports could be opened on Hudson Bay, Labrador and Baffin Island to handle the export of grain.

Extreme weather changes, which would have been disastrous to earlier civilizations, can now be tolerated by today's urban civilization with central heating, effective insulation and modern means of transport. And if another ice age were to occur, it would happen over a span of thousands of years giving mankind plenty of time to adjust. Civilizations would slowly retreat southward; as generations succeeded one another, they would slowly make their way north again when the glaciers and ice sheets melted to repopulate the land their ancestors had to abandon.

Carbon dioxide has been flagged as a destructive substance, while in fact it is not only essential for life but is also very beneficial to mankind. It is a fact that evolutionary advances increased during warmer and higher CO2 levels than today. Climate-change alarmists and doom mongers proclaim that the present warming trend is due to CO2, while in fact there isn't a worldwide warming trend at all only local warming and the climate overall is actually cooling down. Besides, there isn't necessarily a correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide, during the last century, when mean temperatures decreased, carbon dioxide actually increased. And what's more, if there were less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants would be fewer and grow less quickly, making it harder to feed the growing populations. Therefore, if anything, carbon dioxide - rather than be maligned, should be extolled and recognized as evidence of an advantageous climatic evolution for mankind.

Our planet is no Arcadia, it is constantly evolving for the better and sometimes for the worse, without man's input; it is presumptuous to imagine man can alter this ever-changing state. And it is ecological vanity to consider spending millions of dollars on trying to control global warming - a futile exercise, particularly during the present financial debacle and deep recession. It would be far more ethical to give it to developing countries in need of aid, medication and food.

It is futile for man to fight climate change; pollution yes, but not the climate. It makes a lot more sense to invest in adapting to it. Legend has it that the magpie was the only bird not to embark on Noah's ark, choosing to "jabber over the drowning world." This wily, intelligent species with its adaptability and survival instinct has flourished for ages through many climate changes without any help from man. It might be a good idea to take a lesson from the magpie and not be panicked by the masses over a non-existent crisis.
It wasn't long ago that anyone suggesting that climate warming was questionable didn't register a pulse with the public majority, but now that has changed. More and more people are challenging the dogma of the so-called climate Gurus, and for good reason.

With regard to climate warming, politicians are being misled, ecologists are being misled, scientists are being misled and the public is being misled. It is a chain reaction created by spurious science that is fostering unnecessary anxiety and wasting money that could well be spent on more critical matters. For instance, in the current issue of the French magazine "Geo", a questionnaire asked its readers what they thought the most threatening menace over the last 30 years was. The leading answer was global warming; second, with merely 30% of the readers, was terrorism.

As a further example of the hysteria generated by global warming alarmists, here is an article that recently
appeared in London's Telegraph:

"Global warming could cause the West Antarctic ice sheet to collapse, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels, scientists claim.... This could cause sea levels to rise by up to seven meters (23ft) within one to three thousand years, wiping out wildlife, flooding low-lying island and coastal areas and changing weather patterns by releasing fresh water into the sea."

The article is written in such a way as to suggest that wildlife will be wiped out and lowlands flooded by a some sudden cataclysmic inundation, where animals wouldn't have a chance to move inland to higher ground; when in fact, if it at all did happen, it would be a slow, gradual phenomenon over thousands of years giving plenty of time to make adjustments. Furthermore, sediment studies from the Antarctic floor show that the ice sheet did periodically collapse over a period of a million years yet the world endured.

Global warming would be a far more positive occurrence than global cooling would ever be. With the Artic ice pack shrinking it is a windfall for oil exploration and navigation just when it may be most required. The use of a northwest passage for transport would save incalculable amounts of energy in shipping and new oil fields would be an additional supply for ones further south that are nearing exhaustion.

In an era when weather forecasting can't even tell with any reliability what the weather will be in a weeks time, much less a month from now, how can people believe we will know the weather in the coming decades, or hundreds of years from now? Reliance on computer-generated estimations is as unreliable as the weather reports are today. All though the ages human history has been affected by major weather changes that lasted centuries and the human race ultimately survived.

We know that between the years 450 AD and 1000 the weather was far drier and warmer than it is today, allowing Vikings to navigate the generally calm seas all the way to Greenland and on to Canada. Should the present warming trend continue and amplify, Greenland could be green again and Canada would have a much longer growing season allowing more people to be fed. With no ice to threaten shipping great ports could be opened on Hudson Bay, Labrador and Baffin Island to handle the export of grain.

Extreme weather changes, which would have been disastrous to earlier civilizations, can now be tolerated by today's urban civilization with central heating, effective insulation and modern means of transport. And if another ice age were to occur, it would happen over a span of thousands of years giving mankind plenty of time to adjust. Civilizations would slowly retreat southward; as generations succeeded one another, they would slowly make their way north again when the glaciers and ice sheets melted to repopulate the land their ancestors had to abandon.

Carbon dioxide has been flagged as a destructive substance, while in fact it is not only essential for life but is also very beneficial to mankind. It is a fact that evolutionary advances increased during warmer and higher CO2 levels than today. Climate-change alarmists and doom mongers proclaim that the present warming trend is due to CO2, while in fact there isn't a worldwide warming trend at all only local warming and the climate overall is actually cooling down. Besides, there isn't necessarily a correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide, during the last century, when mean temperatures decreased, carbon dioxide actually increased. And what's more, if there were less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants would be fewer and grow less quickly, making it harder to feed the growing populations. Therefore, if anything, carbon dioxide - rather than be maligned, should be extolled and recognized as evidence of an advantageous climatic evolution for mankind.

Our planet is no Arcadia, it is constantly evolving for the better and sometimes for the worse, without man's input; it is presumptuous to imagine man can alter this ever-changing state. And it is ecological vanity to consider spending millions of dollars on trying to control global warming - a futile exercise, particularly during the present financial debacle and deep recession. It would be far more ethical to give it to developing countries in need of aid, medication and food.

It is futile for man to fight climate change; pollution yes, but not the climate. It makes a lot more sense to invest in adapting to it. Legend has it that the magpie was the only bird not to embark on Noah's ark, choosing to "jabber over the drowning world." This wily, intelligent species with its adaptability and survival instinct has flourished for ages through many climate changes without any help from man. It might be a good idea to take a lesson from the magpie and not be panicked by the masses over a non-existent crisis.