Climate Change: Time to Rethink?

Some thoughts based on limited academic research but on a lot of life.

The climate of Planet Earth has been in a state of constant change since it first started to form as an object in space.

It will continue in a state of change until the sun swells up and burns the Earth to nothing.

Many things affect our global climate, from the variations in “jet stream” winds to volcanic eruptions, from human use of vehicles to the fluttering of the wings of a butterfly.

Trying to get honest, verifiable data is much harder than it should be, considering it has been a topic for discussion ever since humans developed speech. Much media attention is given to the outpourings of “climate experts” but getting to the honest facts, that are supposedly used by these “experts” in coming to the pronounced opinion, is actually very hard.

The “working papers” and unaltered raw data is never published, so many adjustments, interpretations, extrapolations, are made, that the end figures always depend more on the mind set, the belief, of the “expert” than on actual science.

Since we now have well-paid jobs in the “climate” industry, and since vast amounts of money are invested in “green” policies, we naturally have vested opinions, and sales pitches, being pronounced as fact.

Yes, it is certain the global climate will change over the next 1000 years, it has certainly changed over any 1000 year period you care to choose, during the history of the human race.

Are humans the cause of these changes?

Can humans stop these changes?

Are some humans becoming very wealthy and powerful by claiming we can stop climate change?

How much honest science is being directed at establishing exactly what geographic changes will occur over the next 1000 years?

What will humans do about coping with these changes?

I can only follow the example of the “experts” and offer my opinions. The difference is I know and openly say, they are opinions.

Human activity since the industrial revolution, and probably since the discovery of how to harness fire, have some effect on the speed at which global climate changes.

The pollution created by humans has an effect on the planet in may ways and certain gaseous pollutants probably have an affect on the speed (rate) of change. The problems of air pollution are not directly linked to global climate change. The issue of cleaner vehicles to cut localized air pollution is understandable and necessary in places but applying nation wide policies, in the name of climate change prevention, to deal with localized problems is a “red herring” it is being promoted by those intending to make vast fortunes from controlling the supply of Lithium

If humans went back to stone age style lives, climate change would continue.

No amount of tax increases is going to stop climate change.

The priority of world governments should be on how to determine what the changes will mean for their people and how to cope with these changes.

There are always two sides to every thing; the ancient Chinese philosophers said you can not create light without casting a shadow, you can not make a coin with only one side. All our “green” advances come at a cost and very little evaluation is made of that cost — the sales pitch is save the planet, go green and never think of the “cost.” This is not science, it is stupidity.

Such issues as the ecological costs of production and the availability of Lithium for electric powered vehicles gets pushed to one side by the sales drive to go green. Several nations are now reported as insisting that by 2040, the only new vehicles they will allow will be those without diesel or petrol engines, if this is accurate, then hybrid cars will also be banned. Those who control the supply of Lithium will be in financial heaven, their lobbying is going to pay off.

Reusable glass bottles used to be the norm, but now everyone is claiming we must recycle the plastic bottles. Plastic bottles are not uniform in the material they are made from and you can not mix differing plastic and put back into highly sensitive mass production blow molding machines. These are the sort of issues that are pushed out of public debate in the name of saving the planet, but how real are these claims? What is actually going to save the planet?

The banning of personal transport is not to be contemplated, the return to the early days of the automobile when only the very rich could afford personal transport is also a nonstarter. We urgently need the development of vehicles that do not need either diesel, petrol or Lithium in their drive systems. Those in control of Lithium will try their best to stop other developments but they must be made. Light sensitive panels that produce electricity would only work in daylight. Hydrogen fuel cells seem to be an alternative.

Above all we must fully examine the total ecological costs of all systems, starting from the production of materials used, manufacture, life span, replacement of parts and final recycling.

We have to stop governments and the media accepting a sales pitch as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Ultimately the reality is that in the very long term, the human population of planet Earth has to be reduced to one that is sustainable.

I came across this line from a report published on 18 July, 2017:

In September 2015, 193 world leaders agreed to the Global Goals, with the aim of ending extreme poverty, inequality and climate change by 2030.

Now glance at the Economic and Social Research Council.

The demand for low-carbon goods and services is increasing rapidly, with a turnover of £43.3 billion in 2015 for low-carbon and renewable energy companies in the UK. A low-carbon strategy for international trade agreements will maximise opportunities after Brexit.

So Question 1: Does anyone living in the real world know how 193 world leaders were going to eliminate extreme poverty AND climate change in 15 years?

How many heard the story of King Canute?

Climate change may be affected by human activity but global climate change was occurring BEFORE humans became humans. It will not be eliminated by taxation, it will not be eliminated by act of government, it will not be eliminated by suppressing freedom, it will not be eliminated by vastly expensive UN jollies masquerading as conferences.

Question 2: Does anyone see a connection between political edicts from the UN and BIG business profits to be made?