An Inconvenient Hoax

Hot on the heels of the news that it has snowed recently in Baghdad, I would like to state unequivocally that

Man-made Global Warming is a hoax.

It is the biggest hoax of this century. It is a political idea with a dash of religion and a smattering of science. And as political ideas go, it is second only to one of the worst political ideas in history: Communism. And unfortunately they are not too far removed from each other.

The earth may very well be warming (or cooling). In fact it may surprise you to know that for as long as there has been a planet called Earth, the temperature on it has been constantly changing. Geologists, climatologists and other-gists who look at the weather and have examined the historical record, agree that the climate on earth is either warming - coming out of an ice age, or cooling - going into an ice age. This cycle of weather has been repeating itself for billions of years. There are smaller cycles (1,500 yrs) inside larger cycles(23,000yrs, 41,000yrs, 100,000yrs). There are probably many more that we are unaware of. The last ice age was around 1600s where large parts of Europe froze over. It is known as the Little Ice Age.

Here's a couple of common arguments I hear constantly about this issue:

A hotter earth is going to mean millions more dead people.
(THE SCORCHED EARTH ARGUMENT)
More people die of cold each year than heat. A slightly warmer earth therefore will result in less people dying, all other things being equal. A slightly warmer earth will also benefit plants and will result in increased crop yields, which means more food.

The melting polar caps will cause a rise in sea levels will flood populated cities.
(THE DROWNING POLAR BEAR ARGUMENT)
The amount of heat energy required to melt the ice-caps enough for a 20ft sea level rise that the most estimable Nobel Laureate and Academy Award™ winner Al Gore constantly bangs on about, is roughly 300 times the amount of heat energy the earth receives in one year. Of course, Mr Gore declines to mention over what time period this 20ft sea level rise is supposed to happen.

Thousands of scientists, academics, and politicians agree that Global Warming is happening.
(THE CONSENSUS ARGUMENT)
This is perhaps the weakest argument put forward as evidence of the Warming. Which is why it used the most often, and with the shrillest of voices. Just because lots of individuals believe in an idea, doesn't make it true. Remember, most academics, learned individuals and politicians in the 1400s believed the earth was flat. Millions of people voted the for the Nazi's. All physicians used to believe that bleeding patients was a way to cure them. Religion.

History is littered with bad ideas that lots of people believed in until something else came along. Einstein once said that to defeat his theory of relativity, “one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

Why CO₂?

Out of every toxic thing that humans produce, pollute and otherwise rape the planet with, why would every brave 'Cassandra' warning us of this impending doooom, focus on a gas that:

-that the planet produces naturally (via the sea, plants, volcanoes, etc...)
-that pretty much every living thing either produces whether it's alive or dead
-that we humans produce when we breathe out

Clear your mind for a moment of the usual talking points you may have read in The Age, the BBC or seen on TV and think why would every policy focus on CO₂, a naturally occurring gas, the mechanics of which (the Carbon Cycle) we don't really understand?

There is only one reason I can think of: CO₂ is a marker for economic development.

There is a direct relationship between the level of economic development and level of CO₂ produced. Quite simply, if a country has a lot of factories and industries, a lot of CO₂ is produced. It doesn't matter which country, culture or even which industries. Put another way, the CO₂ output Zimbabwe is less than the CO₂ output of Australia.

If the powers that be focused on a toxic gas/element that could also be a by-product of any specific industrial activity, you would not be able to compare it effectively across countries as different composition of industries cause different types of damage and pollution.

ie. Arsenic. This is a toxic chemical which is poisonous to humans and the environment. Spills of arsenic can cause incredible environmental devastation. It is also a by-product of several industrial processes, one of which is the mining of gold. For example the arsenic output (read: pollution) of Chile (a large gold producing, 'developing' country) is larger than the arsenic output of France (much less gold, much more 'developed' country).

So if we accept that CO₂ can be used as a marker for economic development, and all global warming, climate change policies laws, etc attempt to restrict the output of CO₂, or in other words, the “State” is attempting to have total control over the output of industry. This now begs the question what other political idea attempted total control over the output of all industry?

And here's the biggest piece of evidence that those perpetrating the hoax are now aware that most people are waking up to the fact that this is a big steaming load of CO₂ emitting BS: If you look closely at all the articles coming out now about the phenomenon formerly known as Global Warming, you'll note that they are now using the much more easy to digest title of “Climate Change”.

Climate Change? Wow, there's naturally occurring phenomenon that requires heaps of our tax money and a bunch of Trans-national regulatory bodies. I mean it's not like there been “Climate Change” on earth before...oh wait a minute.

None of the preceding arguments is not to say we shouldn't do anything and keep polluting. There are many essential reasons we should be thinking more environmentally, getting off fossil fuels, using renewable energy, etc etc etc. However, the main (read: only) focus of any policy to do with The Warming focuses solely on CO₂ output. First it's banning incandescent light bulbs, then the power company will want to control your air-conditioner, then it will be taxes for couples who wish to have babies, and then you won't be allowed air-travel, all in the name of reducing a naturally occurring gas.

And if power companies are going to be penalised taxed on the amount of CO₂ they produce, where exactly do you think these costs are going to end up? And do you think it will stop with your power bill? Anyone want to give me an example of ANYTHING that you use/wear/drive/eat/whatever that does not at some point, involve electricity and a power company? Do you think the relative prices of those things will stay the same?

It might surprise you to know that Al Gore and his ilk are shareholders in companies that are placed to profit from Carbon Credit trading, an entirely artificial market created to make money without having to produce anything.

And if CO₂ is bad, then we should be doing things to reduce it. Period. Not create artificial markets, which simply offsets the responsibility of CO₂ output to another country, which by it's very structure is completely open to abuse, and also increases the likelihood of other, more pernicious pollutants being used instead.

It's the Earth mMother of all Hoaxes.