An Inconvenient Counter-Augument

Now that Al Gore has received his Oscar, it would appear that it’s now safe for criticism of the whole ‘global warming’ thing to ramp up.

A couple of weeks back we had the revelation that Gore’s 10,000 sq ft Nashville home churns through approx 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, compared with an average for that city of 15,600 kilowatt hours. So that’s the hypocricy argument pretty much settled.

Then last week Britain’s Channel 4 aired a documentary I’d really recommend you watch (the whole thing is available for viewing online): ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.

The argument the makers have put forward is the third option that I’ve always found conspicuously absent from the ‘global warming’ debate: ‘If the planet is warming up, is it of our own doing, and is there anything we can do about it?’ The short answer, put forward by an impressive array of eminent scientists, is ‘No’. They also do a great job of illustrating the insidiousness of the ‘Global Warming’… erm… swindle.

I’m posting this not because I want to engage any of you in a pissing contest, but because on reflection a couple of interesting thoughts have occurred to me:

  1. Is it just me, or is the whole ‘global warming’ hysteria reminiscent of the Y2K phenomena of the late 90’s?

    *’Possible issue’ identified.
    *Somebody figures out that there’s money to be made, but only if we commit to ill-conceived knee-jerk reactions (see also the Kyoto Protocol).
    *’Possible issue’ becomes ‘definite threat’, becomes ‘armageddon looming’.
    *Any dissenting or alternate opinions regarded as ill-informed heresy.
    *One way or another, I end up paying for it.

  2. Remember SARS?
  3. Ever get the feeling you’re being played?

Personally I have to say I’m undecided. The only thing I know for sure is that none of the arguments put forth in the mass media are convincing enough for me to agree with wholeheartedly. All the big players seem to have an ulterior motive – a quest for a viewers, an Oscar, or economic ruin (see Kyoto Protocol).

What do YOU think? Don’t tell me the conclusions somebody else made, that you’ve decided to agree with – have a look around, consider the evidence ON BOTH SIDES, make your own opinion, and share it with the world.


0 Responses to “An Inconvenient Counter-Augument”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: