There was an error in this gadget

Friday, 1 February 2013

Climate Change; or Power Play?

I have on my bookshelves a serious book written in the 1970s (I'm frankly to lazy to look it out and give date ISBN and so on) which proposed that we were about to plunge into an ice age. Since the late 1980s we've been listening to the ever more desperate Greens as they tell us we're all going to fry, so what is the 'inconvenient truth' of the matter. Several papers, notably NOT reported on by the BBC, Nature or any of the other shrill 'Climate Change' media, seem to suggest that what we have is a natural variation. When the El Nino and North Atlantic Oscillation are in play in one direction, we get droughts, heat waves and mild winters, when La Nina teams up with the NAO and shifts into place on the western edges - we get floods, cool summers and cold winters.

Some of the more laughable things the 'true believers' in Anthropomorphic Global Warming say includes the weather man on CNN recently who told his viewers the reason the Eastern and Mid-Western US was blanketed in snow and freezing was that there was no ice in the Arctic. Where the devil he got that from I'm completely at a loss to even guess, but he did put up a picture, with false colour temperature bands on it, that showed the land masses but apparently open sea. According to his 'explanation' the heat in the Arctic was causing all the cold air to move south ... Frankly, you could not invent this in fiction without someone howling its impossible - so why do they get away with it on TV?

The truth is, that it has nothing to do with 'saving the planet,' it's about power, and who wields it. As the commentator Robert Zubrin put it -

Antihumanism is a belief system which holds that humans are destroyers [whose] activities, aspirations, and numbers must be severely constrained… In the 1970s there was a global cooling trend going on. So the antihumanists said “look, there is global cooling, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” Then in the 1980s the climate began to warm, so they said “look, there is global warming, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” The problem is always different, the solution is always the same [de-industrialization, and:] – put them in control. Its not about weather, it’s about power.

The current row over the prosecution policies of the RSPCA, and the political agenda of its CEO, is a case in point. Reading this man's Tweets and his Blog, you very quickly realise that he is a crusading activist. He wants the Grand National banned, he pursues Hunts and even pensioners are prosecuted for not 'taking proper care' of aging pets. One was recently fined £70 for the 'offence' of not having the heart to have a beloved pet 'put down.' He is defiant in the face of the Charities Commission and evasive in interviews - and his 'staff' in the RSPCA are afraid of him. He epitomises the reason I have stopped all donations to this originally well-intentioned organisation and a number of others now controlled by similar people.

The truth is that most of those who fight for the 'Green' agenda are, at bottom, anti-humanists. They believe that if we all return to the idyll of 'village life' and support ourselves with 'sustainable farming' and 'cottage industries' life will be perfect, peaceful and we'll all live happily ever after. In their minds, the problem is too many people, but the reality is that those who control the organisations they subscribe to, are manipulating everything and everyone to maintain their power base. Zubin, like myself, remembers the 1970s scare stories about the coming Ice Age, now its all about the coming Heat Age.

One thing is for sure, we only rarely, and David Attenborough said it recently, hear the real agenda - population reduction. The question no one wants to address of course, is how do you achieve that without genocide, a pandemic plague or a major war? It simply isn't going to happen and nor is the 'Green Dream' of a return to idyllic village life, cottage industry and 'sustainable' farming.

1 comment:

  1. As a student, I majored in Biology for my education degree and I recall reading Rachel Carson's “Silent Spring” and Frank Graham Jr's “Since Silent Spring” with fear for our future. I recoiled equally at the use of defoliants such as “Agent Orange” in Cambodia and Vietnam and when I noticed the Gadie burn at the back of Benachie (There's a song in that... Benachie ) ran mysteriously clearly I was appalled to discover a Forestry Commission hut filled with leaking drums of the same 2,4,5-T. I believe that the failure of international governments to protect the Amazonian rain forests is going to have an “anthropomorphic” effect on our world and I applaud the world powers for at least trying to regulate the far eastern exotic hardwood market.

    However, turning down our central heating boiler or air conditioning unit is not going to “save the whale”, whatever we do in Europe, China and India will undo in the coming decades and they are somewhat larger than the entire European sub-continent. We do need to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, but that is because fossil fuels are a finite resource and we are already most of the way through most of them. I am a believer in the Gaia hypothesis, however. I do believe that the Earth is a self-regulating and self-healing ecosystem, however, it is not a static system and never has been. Our problem is that man-kind can apparently believe only in the human life-span, politicians only in the time to the next election and such short periods of time matter not one jot to Mother Earth; she has a much longer time frame to consider and the conditions suitable for humanity have only existed for a blink of her eye and will only continue to exist for another couple of blinks. It's a hard world, live with it, our children and grand-children might be okay, they might not, but if the world is due to change, we can't stop it.

    As the Monk suggests, it is about time that the four Horsemen of the apocalypse mounted up and rode out (with or without Eric the milkman...) and thinned the world's population a little, the increase over the past century is truly frightening and potentially unsupportable; we started with around 1.5 billion souls took 27 years to reach 2, 33 more to reach 3 in 1960, 14 years to get 4 in 1974, then went 1987, 1999, and 2012 to get to 7, roughly 12/3 years each, by 2060 it is probable that we will number 10 billion, so more than tripling in the hundred years from 1960 to 2060, that worries me, not that I'll be here to see it unless I live to 105, which is conceivable given modern trends, perhaps not desirable, but conceivable. Now, how is Mother Earth going to deal with that little issue?... the numbers, that is, not my longevity.

    ReplyDelete