Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head

IPCC reports, Kyoto protocols, Live Earth concerts, and of course Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth… The issue of global warming sure is getting a lot of air time and pervading the public conciousness.

Along with the urgent message that the globe is heating up due to human activities, the campaigners also spread the guilt-inflicting call to green up our lifestyle!

Recycle, reduce, reuse… Switch to green energy, install energy-efficient light bulbs, drive an efficient or hybrid car, stop deforestation… These are all steps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, i.e. our carbon footprint.

These are also all steps which are a general environmentalist’s dream come true. The issue of global warming has been heard like no other eco-friendly message before it… Not even Captain Planet and the Planeteers.

Now if you’ve read anything on my blog in the Global Warming Fears category, you’ll know that I am seriously unconvinced of the objective, factual, scientific evidence for anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.

On the contrary, I strongly feel that the whole GW shebang is based on faulty data, skewed interpretation, political motives, hypocritical preaching by big-time energy guzzlers, and a massive campaign to sucker the public and governments in while viciously smearing skeptics.

So the question must be asked: Even if all my accusations are true, which means that anthropogenic global warming is NOT true, isn’t what the whole global warming circus achieving for the environment a good thing?

If people pollute less, use less energy, waste fewer resources, protect the environment more because of the fear of global warming… Isn’t that worth believing a few lies?

I shall answer that question in the form of an allegory.

Trepanation is an odd little procedure, believed by some to be a beneficial medical procedure. Basically, it involves drilling a hole in your skull.

             

                                               OW.

Let’s say an international organization is formed to warn the public of the dangers of Pressure In Skull Syndrome (you place the acronym yourself).

The risks faced by 100% of the human population include exploding skulls, blood gushing from the ears, popping eyeballs and occassionally, mild eczema.

To combat Pressure In Skull Syndrome, we must all go for a simple trepanation procedure and have a hole drilled into our skulls, thereby relieving the Pressure In Skull. Voila! Global crisis resolved!

But due to the high cost of the operation (namely, having a drill rammed into your skull leaving a gaping hole), many skeptics and opponents of Pressure In Skull Syndrome emerge to refute the so-caleld evidence that Pressure In Skull Syndrome exists and is a genuine threat.

They are instantly mocked and discredited in a well-organized attack, led by Al Borer and his Oscar-winning film, An Inconveniently Placed Hole. Soon, consensus is claimed on the existence of Pressure In Skull Syndrome.

Besides, the supporters ask, trepanation is beneficial towards so many other medical syndromes! High blood pressure is reduced. Migraines, epilepsy and general headaches are averted. Even brain surgery can be more easily performed! Isn’t that worth a hole in the head, even if Pressure In Skull Syndrome is completely untrue?

I ask the reader: Would YOU submit to getting a hole drilled into your head to reap these side benefits? Particularly if Pressure In Skull Syndrome were not a factually proven, scientifically-backed risk?

Or would you rather reduce your salt intake to combat high blood pressure? How about cutting the caffeine to avoid migraine attacks? And hey! You know what? You could actually develop a brain problem FIRST before making a hole for brain surgery. Wait until it’s necessary, what a profound idea!

Similarly, should we go into a blind panic and slash our carbon emissions – along with the vehicle usage, electricity generation, inudstrial manufacturing and economic prosperity that comes with CO2 emisions – in order to marginally improve the city haze, traffic congestion and deforestation?

Wouldn’t each environmental problem be better tackled directly and more effectively, rather than perhaps-maybe benefiting from utterly STUPID knee-jerk anti-global warming activities?

How does shutting down industry and killing the economy save the orangutans? By starting recessions and wars that will divert the tanks and planes to killing humans instead of apes?

How will pumping CO2 into huge underground caverns protect the rainforests, which can still be cut down and burnt as long as the resultant CO2 doesn’t get into the atmosphere?

How does shooting tons of sulphur in the air to reflect sunlight back into space – thereby cooling the world – benefit the millions dying from water-borne diseases from unclean water sources, while trillions are being wasted on Kyoto’s Carbon Indulgences?

Each of the above proposals aim to do one thing only – reduce CO2 emissions. Any beneficial side effects are coincidental. And of course, the massive negative side effects must be taken into account.

By focusing solely on the make-believe dangers of CO2, Al Gore and the IPCC and the Live Earth performers and EVERY ONE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PARANOIA SPREADERS is distracting the world from real environmental, human and global crises.

And don’t think that – massive waste of resources and time aside – efforts to combat global warming like the Kyoto crock-us-alls will not cause any other negative effects. Seriously, launching mirrors into orbit to reduce the sunlight that reaches Earth???

My earlier post has excerpts from a speech by Michael Crichton. In it, he described how incredible arrogance, stubborness, stupidity and ignorance of science led to an environmental disaster… One that was caused by humans trying to ‘fix’ the problems with the environment.

Yellowstone Park back in the 1890s was a nice place to visit. Nature was, in the eyes of puny humans, ‘in balance’. But oh, hey look! The elk seem to be going extinct. So the park rangers began preserving and encouraging their numbers. They were even fed to increase their population.

The result was that the elk population increased dramatically. They ate all the plants in sight. Antelope and deer began to declined as they starved. To fix the problem of dropping antelope and deer numbers, the park rangers started killing their predators – cougars, wolves and coyote.

Meanwhile, the elk ate all the aspen trees. The beavers, deprived of the trees, couldn’t make dams. Without dams, the meadows dried up in summer and more animals died. Wolves could not be reestablished without the small animals – like the vanished beaver – they eat.

And then – the forests burned. The Native Americans used to burn the forest regularly, and natural fires from lightning happened every summer. But by suppressing these fires, the accumulation of branches on the ground allow very hot fires to burn when they finally do.

So in 1998, Yellowstone Park burned. 1.2 million acres were scorched, 800,000 acres were burned up. The hot fires sterilized the soil – all the seeds in the ground were cooked.

All this, because the park rangers thought they knew best and refused to listen to the skeptics.

And today, Ranger Gore and the International Global Warming Park Service are merrily recruiting people to their cause, while ignoring and even silencing skeptics. Their plan – to sacrifice modern life as we know it on the altar of ‘sound environmental management’, i.e. cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

I call upon every sane, rational person to stop and seriously consider the scientific basis, the logic, the proof, the evidence, the consequences and the alternatives… Before lying down and willingly leeting yourself get screwed right in the head. (This PDF book is a good place to start getting informed.)

You owe it to yourself and all of humanity.

And a final piece of homework to ponder on… Rachel Carson (queen of environmentalist genocide)‘s book Silent Spring is said to have been instrumental in getting DDT banned. DDT causes cancer and kill wildlife, it was declared.

And 40 years on, DDT has been proven to NOT cause cancer (even if you eat a tablespoon of it every day!), to NOT kill wildlife. What has been proven, from hindsight, is that the very strong economic discouragement against using DDT (it was never lietrally banned) led to it not being used to kill malaria-carrying mosquitos.

The result of rampant environmentalism that monopolizes science and ignores skeptics – at least 50 million deaths from malaria which DDT could have prevented. That is more than Hitler’s Nazis ever managed to slaughter.

So how many millions of deaths will the sweeping unscientific decrees of the IPCC cause this time around? I for one am not about to sit quietly and find out one sad, shattered day.