For those who think that mankind is devastating the planet by causing global warming, it’s a myth, but it keeps the greenies and tree-huggers in business, otherwise they would become redundant. For instance, one day’s emission of sulphur dioxide and other gases from the volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines a few years ago put more ozone-destroying elements into the atmosphere than the combined pollution caused by man in the past 40 million years.
Mankind can’t compete with nature when it comes to pollution, as there are thousands of active volcanoes throughout the planet, all spewing out greenhouse gases. Go to Rotorua in New Zealand and you can smell it all day and night, 365 days of the year. If you think we are suffering from global warming because of something that mankind is doing, ask yourself why the polar icecaps on Mars are melting? Maybe there’s a secret colony of humans on Mars, polluting whatever vestige of atmosphere is on the Red Planet. Or could it just be the sun going through its usual cycle of increasing and decreasing energy? That’s the real reason, but let’s not get in the way of the greenies and their agendas.
The truth is that global warming, ozone layer breakdown and other so-called man-created worldwide changer to the environment is a gigantic load of crap, driven by people who have made a profession out of being environmentalists. The following article by journalist Tim Blair really says it how it is.
————————————–
The Vanity of Global Warming
By Tim Blair
December 02, 2006
Human beings are vain creatures, given to imagining we are able to influence events far beyond our control.
An aunt of mine believes, for example, she can cause English wickets to fall during Test matches by doing her ironing.
Her family was looking pretty sharp last week. Even their socks were ironed.
As superstitions go, hers is a mild one. By contrast, Queensland University student Sarah Bishop believes she can influence the weather.
The 22-year-old will walk 1000km from Brisbane to Sydney next month in a bold bid to adjust the planet’s temperature.
“I just figure it’s really easy to sit around and complain that other people aren’t doing anything about it,” the young environmentalist told reporters.
“But if I’m not doing anything I’m exactly the same as everybody.”
Can’t have that. So Sarah’s trek – she aims to collect Kyoto-supporting signatures along the way, which she’ll deliver to Kirribilli House once in Sydney – will demonstrate the power of an environmentalist over the environment.
As her website www.globaldawning.org says: “One committed young Australian can make a difference.”
Sorry, Sarah. Nothing you do will make any difference at all to the climate. (Also, there is no Santa Claus.) Check the stats. Australia contributes just 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Let’s assume, just for fun, that each of us generates an equal amount of that overall figure. Sarah’s contribution comes to just 0.00000007%.
Sarah could become completely carbon neutral (ie, cease to exist) tomorrow, and the Great Greenhouse Gods wouldn’t even notice. Forget raising awareness of global warming; global warming needs to be made aware of Sarah.
But let’s leave Sarah alone. She’s well-intentioned, if not particularly aware of humanity’s scale relative to the whole planet.
Let’s look instead at the effect an entire nation has on global warming. Here’s the Calgary Sun’s Licia Corbella: “What would happen if Canada were never to produce another man-made CO2 molecule ever again?
“If every man, woman and child never exhaled again and therefore never produced anymore hated CO2, what would be the effect?
“What would happen if all Canadians just disappeared and therefore all that hated machinery and technology that makes survival through a Canadian winter possible, just sat idle? No cars driving around, no need to heat homes or turn on lights. No more plants and factories. What would the effect on the global climate be?
“Absolutely nothing at all.”
That’s because Canada produces just 2 per cent of global warming gases – just a fraction more than Australia.
These amounts are miniscule. They are practically immeasurable in the overall context of global emissions.
Think on this awhile: if a vengeful Gaia were to smite both Canada AND Australia out of existence, that would reduce by only 3.4 per cent of these warming gases some believe are killing the planet.
We’re talking about a combined total of 53 million people, millions of houses, millions of cars, millions of factories and dams and computers and televisions and everything else that makes for modern, affluent, civilised nations.
Completely removing them would make next to no difference at all, global-warming wise. So imagine how little effect a council recycling scheme has, for example. Or how pointless would be the purchase of a hybrid electric car.
Let’s add New Zealand to the list of nations to be scrubbed out under my Appease the Environment policy.
Suddenly, our gas amount of 3.4 per cent leaps to 3.6 per cent (New Zealand’s contribution of global warming gases to the world’s total is, by one estimate, only 0.2 per cent). Sarah Bishop’s happy stroll to Sydney begins to look kind of pointless, does it not? Especially when you consider that her primary aim is to convince the government to sign up for magical Kyoto goodness.
You’d think New Zealand’s pitiful greenhouse output (c’mon, Kiwis! Get working! This planet isn’t going to warm itself, you know!) would make it a winner under the Kyoto Protocol, but no; that’s not how Kyoto works.
The protocol measures a nation’s greenhouse output against it OWN output in 1990. So we end up with a situation whereby clean little non-polluting New Zealand – which produces more greenhouse gases than it did 16 years ago – is penalised, possibly by as much as $1.5 billion.
Which could end up, via Kyoto logic, going to Russia. You remember Russia; they’re the guys who brought us such environmental triumphs as Chernobyl.
Little wonder that some in New Zealand regret ever signing on to this accursed Protocol of the Damned. Even our Canadian pals, who were among the first to embrace Kyoto, are having second thoughts.
In September the Canadian environment minister Rona Ambrose admitted her nation couldn’t meet its Kyoto emissions-reduction target. In fact, Canadian emissions are now running at 27 per cent higher than in 1990.
Run these lines past the likes of earnest Sarah and the usual response will include claims that we’ve got to do something about the climate because last year or last summer or last Tuesday was the “hottest in recorded history”.
Here’s another perspective-building figure: “recorded history” (the last 200 years or so) represents just 0.000004 per cent of the planet’s entire 4.6 billion year existence. This joint’s been around a long time. We’ll barely make a dent in it.
