The only thing which surprises me about this global warming debate is how come this hoax is running for so long.
Are we polluting and over using our Environment?
Yes, we are. No doubt about that. Anyone who has stayed anywhere for a period of around 20 years or so will say that there is something wrong with the way things are changing. More cars, more factories, less trees. Surely, there are a lot of people who will also claim that the climate is getting increasingly uneasy. From the polluted Ganges, for which the government has extended the time required to 2020 when it will be able to clean it, to the famous ozone layer depletion, to the depleting forests across the world, to the rising pollution levels in cities across the world we see proofs all around us that rapid industrialization does cause harm to environment with known effects ranging from reduction in average health, to destruction of species, to contamination of water and air and so on.
It needs very basic science and tests to prove that over populated cities put a stress on their surroundings and cause a lot of damage to the delicate ecological balance.
Can this have global impact:
No. At least, even if it did so, there is no known technology as of now to gauge the climate of the whole world and suggest such a thing which allows for miniscule variations over a long period of time. The Ozone hole drama was a hoax and has been established beyond doubt. The scientist who first noted this, based his thesis on the premise that Arctic and Antarctic areas had different ozone readings. The fact is that these values fluctuate by over 50% within a single year. Moreover, depletion of ozone layer, as previously attributed to global warming, causes lesser heating of the stratosphere. In other terms , depletion of ozone should be causing cooling. This was conveniently omitted from the articles of global warming Jihadis during the time the hoax had not been caught. Another 2012 kind of prediction was by IPCC (Inter Govt. Panel on Climate Change). In 2007, in its Fourth Report, it stated that the Himalayan glaciers which feed the Ganges, were at risk of melting by 2035. The source of this information was something written without any scientific basis by some rookie scholar and picked up as a threat by IPCC to the government around the world. R.K. Pachauri got Nobel Peace prize for toeing the line (we shall get to it in a while if this intrigues you). Till 1974, magazine as reputed as 'Time' was insisting that we are going to enter into an ice age. Quite interesting that in the science of global warming which is 'complex' and hence simplified by U.N. doesn't mention anything about cleaning water bodies, planting more trees, checking the massive communication towers mushrooming in cities. There is only one thing it stresses: Greenhouse gases. Why?
Ever wondered why scientists are not able to prove this as hoax? Or is this a collusion of scientists with someone, masquerading something else as global warming? There are leaks which point to it. Some honest voices do get raised, but are neither answered, nor published by media. In fact the data regarding how much the Earth has already warmed is nothing but result of rudimentary scientific calculations based little on pursuit of truth than realpolitik. (Realpolitik?, yeah, we shall come to it as well in a while). There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that global warming is taking place comparing the average temperature or Earth today with previous times. The number of cities recording their hottest summers is almost equal to the number of cities recording their coldest winters. The winters have been conveniently brushed aside as El-Nino effect. More than 150 countries meet almost every year over beer and discuss this 'grave danger to humanity'. What do they discuss? The answer answers all the unanswered questions above.
What is being discussed in global climate summits:
Kyoto Protocol was the first serious attempt to create world consensus on battling global climate issue. Target was for all signatories to cut their greenhouse gas emissions (read industries) by 5% compared to 1990 levels. When it was to enter in force in 2005, the biggest polluter country in the world jumped out of this ship in 2002. So what is really going on?
Simple. With all the wars and banks and army and power and U.N at it's disposal, the U.S is having an economy growing at 2%. Greece defaulted on sovereign loan followed by Ireland, with the result that talks of the whole E.U currency defaulting are making rounds. U.S + Europe + Australia + Japan = what we usually consider as developed countries.
Then we have the third world countries ,inter-alia, China, India, Brazil who are growing their GDP at around 9-12%. China keeps swallowing every pound of steel getting produced, while India show a formal one year caution while bank after bank in U.S. collapsed. Now those who studied simple and compound interest more seriously than my younger brother will realize that though this value of growth sounds less, if you take the difference 12-3 = 9% which is the difference in the growth of some third world economies and the developed countries, if this is sustained over a period of say 40-60 years, and understand that it is compounded, the whole balance of development will be tilted against developed countries.
Most of the developed countries gained their wealth devouring the wealth of third world countries in last three centuries, most which since ancient times, were very rich. Now it is obvious that these third world countries are slowly stabilizing and on path to development. Development needs industries. Which will emit Co2. So they will be forced to pay for emitting these gases. Compared to 1990 levels (which most likely is going to be changed to something like 2010), most of the developed countries don't need much accelerated industrialization as they already have established industries. So a nice principle of 'I am done building my home and now you pay me every time you put a brick for yours.'
Guess what developing countries are asking for. Three simple things: Money for the loss of GDP which they will have to bear, technology for clean fuel use, greater share for developed countries in reducing pollution as it is they who have polluted over past three centuries. With U.S. and co. showing a nice middle finger to the developed world on this, the impasse continues. To put pressure we have people like Pachauri given Nobel peace prize just like Liu Xiaobo was given, while Assange is lodged in Jail with host after host getting DOS'd by 'unknown' hackers whenever wikileaks is hosted.
In fact, it will be a disaster, the day the talks succeed, without appropriate safeguards for the developing countries. They will be paying for every industry they create, the global fund to be created for disbursement to them under the control of U.S, ( sorry I mean IMF or something), with international agency (read U.S. agency) to monitor and fine the countries for lapses. It will kill the chance the developing countries have for redemption after three centuries of exploitation, resulting in never ending clutches getting created for them and any chance of change in global dominance for them moving to the mercy or Uncle S. Overall, it is an attempt to keep the world round.
Don't be surprised if four out of next six Nobel peace prize go to some Global warming crausader, with the fifth one reserved for the son U.S. president right after he passes graduation and the sixth one going to some dissenter in China, N.K, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or Russia. Take a mug of hot coffee and enjoy the Sun.
And yeah, plant a tree for every ten years you live.
0 comments:
Post a Comment