Can humanity change Earth’s environment? Or, are we too small?
In ancient Carthage children were sacrificed to appease the gods. The Carthaginians thought that their actions could control the gods of thunder, drought, earthquakes and volcanoes.
Our modern god, science, is imbued with powers that humans believe can make us masters of our planet. Is this a mere childish arrogance similar to the Carthaginians, or do we possess the power to control or modify Earth’s environment?
There are two camps. Camp one is led by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Control) with its link to the United Nations. They are thought of as a prestigious, flawless body representing highly qualified scientists and logical, precise government concern. Then Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ scandal revealed their inept duplicity. Then came modifications, the withholding and deleting of research data by Professor Jones and Dr. Kelly from the University of East Anglia. Grave doubts were voiced over the IPCC’s integrity.
The second climate camp is the ever growing body of ‘climate warming’ skeptics, also represented by many eminent scientists such as Professor Ian Plimer. They claim that the IPCC has made an industry out of nonsense, and that this steam roller with it’s so called ‘proven science’ has made dogma out of dodgy beliefs. Upon examination, they claim that the ‘proofs’ from camp one are based on ‘fudged’ results. Water vapour is said to be a more effective green house driver than carbon dioxide. Lord Monckton and Joanne Nova are representative of this viewpoint.
The essential dogma from camp one is that human carbon emissions cause climate change. Like most opposing forces there is truth in both camps. However, the danger is that in the name of ‘better safe than sorry’ we may become committed to a farce.
To be sure, most politicians, more intent on votes than truth, are afraid to go against the ‘global warming’ camp. Global warming is now a huge industry with many research projects. Australia’s Rob Gell, in a recent presentation at the ‘Kananook Creek Association’ day, urged citizens to become part of this burgeoning industry.
Away from the glitz and political correctness, what does control our weather? The answer literally stares us in the face: the Sun! Anyone who has seen a Coronal Mass ejection (CME) cannot help being awed by its immense electromagnetic power. Together with solar flares, their explosive discharges dwarf any pathetically puny human efforts. A million coal burning power stations cannot match a solar flare’s thunderous domination.
Somehow, both phenomena are tied to the sunspot cycle. NASA’s STEREO satellites aim to find out why. No one knows or understands the specific mechanisms. Radiation and charged particles blast into space. Earth’s magnetosphere lights up with aurorae; cyclones form; volcanoes erupt with huge lightning displays above their peaks, while earthquakes, with their attendant electrical discharges, devastate cities and generate tsunamis.
Snow storms, such as the recent examples in the United States and Europe (2011), as well as flooding in Australia and Pakistan, along with volcanoes in Iceland, Japan and Indonesia could all be connected. There is a strong contention that these whims of nature are linked. The common thread is the Sun’s electrical connection to Earth’s magnetosphere.
Meanwhile, Dr. Henrik Svensmark has proposed that cosmic rays are the ultimate driver of weather. In essence, charged particles create low level cloud cover that modifies temperature and precipitation. This, not carbon dioxide, correlates with Earth’s weather. Svensmark also postulates that the Sun is driven by variable chaotic forces from outside the Solar System. And recent research has found unexpected sources of cosmic rays close to the Sun, which conform to AlfvÃ©n’s heliospheric electric circuit model of the Sun. These factors combine to affect the Earth’s climate.
So, decide for yourself but do not accept the dogma from either camp. Investigate. The politically correct ‘proof’ of our time might prove to be bunk in another generation. After all, we are victims of fashion.
It is unfortunate that the argument against carbon dioxide emissions is tied up with our environmental concerns. Clearly, we must protect our habitat, but authentic modern concerns must not be confused with contentious and dogmatic arguments.
Peter Mungo Jupp