by
lwtc247
@ 16. Apr 2007 - 00:22:12
lwtc247 post 19
I have just finished watching a global warming program on BBC world called "Are We Changing Planet Earth?" featuring the once respected soothing tones of David Attenborough. Apart from the usual junk science, I am livid at a very cunning slight of hand the program very nearly got away with.
A graph was shown of CO2 emissions for the last 50 years. It was extrapolated to show CO2 emissions for the next 50 years at current rates. The graph was accompanied by words to the effect of "if we carry on like this, the CO2 release will double". We were then told that we need to freeze CO2 emissions now. A 'freeze-line' showing current production was also drawn on the graph for the next 50 years. The difference between the 50 year projection of current rate with the frozen rate was then divided into seven segments.
The program went on to explain ways in which these segments could be tackled and in effect neutralised. In doing so, we would maintain current levels of CO2 production.
Not ONE of those 7 segmented remedies involved industry making a sacrifice, a change to the way it operates, a reduction of factory output or scaling back of its profit increase. Not one! There was one segment that was negated by supporting a shift to nuclear power. {see later}
Not ONE of these 7 segmented remedies involved a reduction of energy use by the military sector: Fuel gorging fighter-planes, tanks, ships and mobile infantry and other military transport units, weapons, bombs and other supplies. Now, I thank God for my well trained sceptical eye. If I didn't have been of a very sceptical disposition, I would not have I spotted this.
The vast majority of the solutions was focused on the individual, and what citizens must do in order to avoid planetary doom.
What was being proposed, actually allowed for the freeze of CO2 levels while business/industry and the military, could continue to grow at the current projected rate for another 50 years!!! I was horrified and increasingly angry when it dawned upon me what was going on.
Given that supposedly clever people were pushing this remedy, I cannot believe it an oversight. I cannot grant them the benefit of the doubt. Consequently I have to assume that it was a deliberate attempt to trick the good people of this earth, to make them, as individuals, pay (yet again) to keep ever growing global capitalistic slave machine, with its military wing via governments to keep it flourishing.
Next off: The freeze and China.
China will soon be the worlds largest economy. Larger than that of the US (I think its already ahead of Japan). Waiting in the wings to act as runner up to China, is India, with Brazil shooting up the rankings. The US is dying. It's economy is in dire straits. Its currency worthless. I'm increasingly beginning to think its death is deliberate, but that’s a different story.
If the CO2 releases were frozen, Chinas economic boom (relient on CO2 releasing fuels) would come to a grinding halt. Attenborough said China has a huge abundance of coal and that plans to build a new coal fired power station every week for the next two(?) years. Can you imagine that? With its increasing economic might, China is also trying to secure oil from Russia, Venezuela and a few Central Asian countries in addition to gas from Iran. Without these fossil fuels, China could not become economic 'top dog' and the US would still be the owner ownership of that statistic which goes... The US has 5% of the worlds population yet uses 23% of its resources.
By maintainig a Freeze China, India or Bukina Faso could not advance its economy.
It seems that this then is the real reason why the freeze at current levels is shouted in panic stricken voices. Where is the independent scientific evidence showing qualification and/or quantification of these that a freeze is needed? Show us the math! Prove the current levels are sustainable, and not say, an more obvious reduction of 5% for example. A better safety margin would be say, a 10% reduction, logically speaking but you will notice there is NO mention of a reduction in that program.
Why are the cuts from current levels not even suggested. The reason is simple, it would harm the current global economic hegemonisitic leviathan running riot around the globe. The big losers would be the US, UK and Europe. So the BBCs propaganda contains racism.
And what of India? Like China, India is a land embracing ancient culture and peoples, a country second only to China has the worlds largest population. By virtue of the over 1 billion people that live there it sees Hindi as the second most commonly spoken mother tongue after Mandarin. India will not be able to secure what some see as its mush postponed birthright of being the worlds second greatest economy should it not be able to utilise CO2 emitting fuels.
Tricking Tipping points:
Scientists used the fear inducing, precipice words of 'tipping point' but what is their evidence for a tipping point? Please tell us. On matters as serious and contested such as global warming, we must be shown the evidence for this and be allowed to decide for ourselves as to its merits. We must not have some spin meister 'sound-byte' the evidence to us in accordance with their beliefs, prejudices and as I point out above, hidden agenda.
General debate on global warming...
The debate has suddenly sprung up about global warming. For quite some time it seemed as though the global warming debate was gradually winning its way into hearts and minds, but over the last year or so, there has been a massive and surprising attack against the global warming hypothesis. At first I thought it was just the oil and energy giants doing everything they can to thwart any harm to their industry, but weirdly they have been joined by their traditional enemies; the small and very vocal, dare I say 'conspiracy minded' section of the chattering classes.
This latter group has been responsible for the debate suddenly gaining prominence. I'm going to junk the so called scientists whom the oil industry funds, because I don’t think anyone believes them. Instead, I want to look at the wonderfully sceptical folk who from experience, have found it prudent to adopt a default in opposition to the 'conventional' voice.
It was these sources that I first noticed talking of the sun and that it appears to be going through unusually high activity. Now as a scientist I ask myself a simple question. Would a small fluctuation in the sun's activity or mans CO2 activity be the most likely reason for global warming. It has to be the Sun. Given the energy output of the Sun in unimaginable, it is fair to assume that the tiniest variation of the suns output would surely have MAJOR repercussions for what’s happening here on earth. I conclude, fornow at least, that man CO2 activities are REALTIVELY meaningless.
Now it gives me no pleasure to say that, because I know it will be taken by the energy companies, giant business/industry and military, all of who spend vast amount of energy killing, oppressing and inflicting general misery upon the good people of the world, to mean that everything’s all right then and that they can continue these murderous activities. No No No. My finger pointing at the Sun must NOT mean that the international killers can continue their global economic and military enslavement. Absolutely not! These nasty slime balls must cease these actions immediately, global warming or not. My words also do not mean I think mans activires have no effect on global warming; it is possible that they are.
The inportant thing is to get it in perspective.
Lastly, the nuclear energy factor.
There is nothing I am more afraid of than matters relating to nuclear energy. My fear stems from my knowledge of the effects of nuclear materials upon biological organisms and the unfathomably long time many of these materials remain extremely dangerous.
1 microgram of Plutonium {an substance never before existing on the earth until when we made it, can kill a human and the British alone have produced more plutonium to kill the worlds population 100 times over. There are radioactive isotopes that remain deadly for millions of years and who destroy the fabric of material around them such as the containers supposed to make their storage safe!!.
All throughout that sneaky BBC climate program, there was much talk about 'we must combat global warming now for the sake of our children and future generations' and yet the nuclear option was proposed without any highlighting of the immeasurably more damaging and dirty legacy the nuclear NON-option would bestow upon the very same future generation. The danger of global warming is nothing to that of the danger of nuclear waste.
To use Nuclear energy in its present form is INSANTIY. There is no other word for it. I N S A N I T Y! Pure and simple. I am disgusted that these people, who we are portrayed as intelligent, have the nerve to defend the most dangerous of human activities. Until science and technology advances to the stages where nuclear waste is no longer an issue, Production of energy by nuclear processes MUST be stopped. I would be very willing to make signifiant sacrifices to my energy consumption if as a result, a definite reduction or guarntee that no nuclear facilities were constructed or used.
I am highly confident that the contributors to this programme, people we are constantly told are smart, knew of these things I have pointed out here, and that the tripe they are peddling has been absorbed into the minds of many people. Well, it was on the telly and that David Attenborough bloke said it so it must be true.
lwtc247
