Friday, 26 June 2009

Climate change – a modest proposal (Yes I know Michael Jackson is dead)

One sees that despite campaigning and evidence to the contrary, the Environmental bandwagon is going to insist on throwing money at a (In my view), non existent problem. The EPA suppresses reports that do not agree with the man made climate change political agenda. China and other ‘developing’ nations are demanding over 100 Billion of each ‘rich’ nations taxpayer dollar for ‘climate mitigation’, and the Prime Monster of the UK (Not a typo) has put the 100 billion price tag on said funds.

This puzzles me, as in the words of a famous stuffed toy, I
'am a bear of very little brain and long words bother me". How does money change, or mitigate the weather? Why is not the investment in ‘Green’ energy and cleaning up the West’s environmental act sufficient? As for China being a recipient instead of a donor country, well ain’t that a riot? If this wasn’t a very serious matter I’d be guffawing my head off. Politicians are throwing your and my money at something which very probably doesn’t exist.

There are many voices claiming otherwise, but as the up to date evidence does not properly support their assertions, I am forced to the other side of the climate fence. I say “What evidence is there that the globe is warming?” Try the following (factual) evidence that it is not;
Sea levels not rising
Coral reef bleaching due to local pollution events, not warming
Global temperature not really rising
Polar Bear population increased year on year since 1950
Arctic not ice free (Currently behind average melt pattern June 2009)
Fewer ‘extreme weather events’
Gulf stream not ‘stopping’
No proven link between CO2 levels and climate
There is currently even a minor trend towards cooler weather in the next few years, which far greater minds than mine ascribe to various factors like reduced solar output, increased planetary albedo, weakened solar magnetosphere, planetary tilt variation, variations in Earth’s orbital path and so on. In light of the aforementioned, to blame all warming and cooling (Whatever) on a trace atmospheric gas (0.03%) that only absorbs and reflects energy in two specific parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, seems a little eccentric to say the least. You might as well blame the tooth fairy.

However, should you believe otherwise, as is your right, I have a modest proposal; Let those that ‘believe’ that we’re all doooomed because of CO2 emissions purchase as many ‘carbon credits’ or ‘carbon offsets’ as they like as an option when travelling. Said credits would be solely for large scale tree planting, setting up and maintaining wilderness parks all over the world, and funding proper research into clean energy like nuclear Fusion (Windmills and solar are a waste of time). Said credits could then be ‘traded’ on a market for those (If any) who wish to purchase them. All ‘climate mitigation’ money should be derived from funds so generated. Payouts from such a fund should only happen when there was clear and incontrovertible evidence that such a payment would certainly ‘mitigate’ (reduce) the climate event responsible. Say for planting managed forests on the upper reaches of large rivers prone to flooding.

However, those who do not 'believe' in man made climate change should not be compelled to buy ‘carbon credits’ when travelling. The summation of this minor thesis is; let the ‘true believers’ dig into their own no doubt capacious pockets. Put their money where their collective mouths are. Let them pay the modern version of indulgences.

P.S Yes I know Michael Jackson is dead, but you can’t force me to care about it. The boy who couldn’t grow up is no more, but I won’t sully this blog with his eccentricities. Close the door and have done with the poor wretch. Speak his name no more except in fond remembrance of the good stuff he once did. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails