In the global warming/climate change debate, two apparent sides are hotly wrangling about whether the phenomenon is real, whether it is caused by human activities, and – perhaps the most incomprehensible and dangerous argument of all – if carbon dioxide, or CO2, is actually a threat to the planet’s future climate stability.
The debate over whether climate is warming and man is the cause (anthropogenic warming) is most visible in the media. Opponents of the theory include Michelle Bachmann, the Heritage Foundation, Freeman Dyson, Sammy Wilson, the American
Enterprise Institute, Sarah Palin, the Cato Institute, Richard Lindzen, Rick Perry, Vaclav Klaus, the International Climate Science Coalition, Exxon Mobil (no surprise there), Bjorn Lomborg, Garth Paltridge, the Heartland Institute, Hendrik Tennekes, Antonino Zichichi, the Fraser Institute, Christopher Monckton, and the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, to name the majority.
It does not include almost everyone on Senator James Inhofe’s infamous “list of 400”, who are largely represented by television weathermen, anti-global warming group members or leaders, economists (who don’t want the whole consumer capitalist meme to come to a screeching halt), and a number of individuals who have no expertise in (and, dare I add, no interest in?) the source of the earth’s current warming trend.
On the affirmative side – that is, those who believe that mankind’s activities over the past century have contributed in large part to the current warming – is a list of organizations (provided as an e-mail response to a Climate Progress article on the subject). They include:
The Academy of sciences of Malaysia, Academy of science South Africa, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American chemical society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorology Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Academy of Science, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Brazilian Academy of Science, Canadian federation of Earth Sciences, Canadian Foundation for climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic society. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Science, The European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, French Academy of Science, German Academy of natural Science, Scientist leapoldina, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London stratigrophy commission, Indian National Science Academy. Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Inter-academy Council, International academies of engineering and technological Sciences, International Union of Geodessy and physics, International Union for Quaternary research, Mexican Academy of Sciences. Network of African Science Academies, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Royale Irish Academy, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Science Council of Japan.
Who is winning the debate? At the moment, a bleak economic picture worldwide is the loudest voice in the room. This voice is canceling global warming prevention initiatives from the U.S. to Australia. Perhaps that is the way certain factions – call them Bilderbergers, or wealthy ruling elite – want it. It’s hard to sort the noise from the conversation when those who control everything turn up the volume and the pressure.
Meantime, a consortium of 11 of the world’s largest engineering organizations says that the technology already exists to slash global greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent by 2050.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) implicated in global warming include CO2, the main culprit; methane; nitrogen oxides; ozone; and fluorinated gases used in refrigeration like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride, or SF6, used in various commercial and industrial products, largely as refrigerants, to replace older and now banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs (which were phased out under the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer).
If the scientists are right, why aren’t we investing in that technology? Or is the media circus a way to distract us from the things our governments are not doing for our benefit?