It seems there are 3 sides to this story:
You believe in man-made global warming in which case you call anyone that doesn’t agree with you a “flat-earther” or a denier;
You think it’s all conspiracy theory & really it’s about a socialist world order etc;
The Rest of Us
You think there may be issues connected with man-made emissions but you want proof and what the heck, if we can live cleaner and be better off for it then great;
I am in The Rest of Us – I would rather live a cleaner greener life and if it saves me money and stops me polluting the planet as well then great.
It’s the Believers that concerns me – and it’s the Believers like Gordon Brown and John Prescott.
My concern is that many of the Believers have an agenda and especially with regards to politicians. Take for a minute that man-made global warming is suddenly disproved and see the effect it might have.
The government are no longer able to tax us on being greener. How many times have we been hit because of it yet global warming still increases? Vested interest groups would no longer get funding. How could they if their cause no longer exists?
Ah, I hear the Believers say, that makes you a sceptic. Maybe it does. Or maybe it makes me a realist. Realistic enough to know that governments have agendas (okay, they call them policies) and open minded enough to know that there may be some truth in what I am being told – from both sides.
Some sceptics will never believe in global warming even if there was 100% proof. That is their right in the same way that some believers would never believe if it was shown to not happen.
Then there is the rest of us. The majority in my opinion. We want to live cleaner but we doubt what we are being told. Why? A few reasons:
Did we really need that many people at a conference using up resources? Didn’t John Prescott and Gordon Brown fly out there? Isn’t that just a tiny bit hypocritical?
Many of the Believers have a vested interest in pushing their own ideals on us. For example, the government can use “green taxes” which we pay without questioning. If man-made global warming is disproved, do we get a refund on these taxes? There are also many lobbying groups being funded. Again, not in their interests to have it disproved. More on him later, but what would John Prescott do without going on about Kyoto and Copenhagen?
A story has appeared in the Mail (click here to read) that the scientist who produced the hockey stick graph may have lost a lot of the data he used to produce it. He says he may have lost it and for what it’s worth I believe him. It does concern me though that his data cannot now be tested and verified.
Global Warming Since 1995
According to Professor Jones there has been no significant global warming since 1995. Does this mean what we have been doing has worked?
It appears that in Medieval Times the planet was hotter than it is now. This then goes with the theories that the Earth naturally warms up and cools down.
Many of you know my feelings on him so skip to the next point if you want. But this is a man that lectures us on global warming & drove 200 yards to a party conference. This is the man that has an 8 bedroom 2nd home in Hull. The man is a hypocrite in my opinion so why should I want to listen to what he has to say?
My personal opinion? There is something of both involved with the Earth naturally warming and man not helping things.
What we need to do is to DEAL with the possible effects that global warming may have. It doesn’t matter if it’s man-made or not, we need to work out what protection we need and then do it.
We know that it may cause flooding to areas of the UK – constructing flood defences such as will help more people than a few green taxes and offsets for carbon emissions.
A tax won’t help stop areas of Kent being flooded – a well built sea defence might. When will this government stop with the throwing bits of paper around and actually DO SOMETHING??
The problem is that there is a lot of hot air being spouted by the Believers and not a lot of ACTING ON Co2.