All a farce?
I just watched a really good, convincing video on Google against the whole hoax of humans causing global warming. It's a documentary, actually, called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.
From the ninth grade to the eleventh grade, we had a subject for our O-level exams called 'Environmental Management'. Throughout the course, we were soaked with the idea that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases [like methane, for example] were contributing to an effect known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse is made of glass for a reason. The rays of sunlight allowed in by the glass are not allowed back outside, keeping the heat inside the greenhouse. The 'greenhouse effect' is similar: the sunlight that enters our atmosphere heats up the land and water to a normal level. Not all the light reflected by the land and water is allowed to escape back into space - some is prevented from escaping into space by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, so Earth heats up more. Usually, this is good. But, we were taught, that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide were increasing the intensity of this effect and raising the temperatures at an alarming rate. Polar ice-caps will melt, we were told, and sea levels will rise, swamping entire countries at a time.
Well, apparently it's not true. There's no real link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. It's all a hoax, all propaganda to perpetuate this cause that's receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding and much more to create jobs like 'environmental journalist'. While all this is fine and dandy, there is a dark side to it, like any other lie. Environmental activists are convincing governments of developing nations that their countries can survive on electricity generated from solar or wind power which are more expensive and much more unreliable than conventional electricity obtained from burning fossil fuels. The richer nations will continue to use petrol power, but the poorer countries may not use any, even if they have the resources... which is a teensy bit unfair, don'tcha think?
Maybe someone can prove me wrong on this one [well, prove those scientists wrong]. I'm not discouraging you from turning off your lights and fans when you're not in the room or from riding your bicycle to the chemist's instead of taking your car because there are other reasons why we should do all that, not just out of fear of global warming. All I'm saying is that the next time you see a report in the media about global warming, watch/listen to/read it with a little bit of skepticism.
From the ninth grade to the eleventh grade, we had a subject for our O-level exams called 'Environmental Management'. Throughout the course, we were soaked with the idea that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases [like methane, for example] were contributing to an effect known as the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse is made of glass for a reason. The rays of sunlight allowed in by the glass are not allowed back outside, keeping the heat inside the greenhouse. The 'greenhouse effect' is similar: the sunlight that enters our atmosphere heats up the land and water to a normal level. Not all the light reflected by the land and water is allowed to escape back into space - some is prevented from escaping into space by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, so Earth heats up more. Usually, this is good. But, we were taught, that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide were increasing the intensity of this effect and raising the temperatures at an alarming rate. Polar ice-caps will melt, we were told, and sea levels will rise, swamping entire countries at a time.
Well, apparently it's not true. There's no real link between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. It's all a hoax, all propaganda to perpetuate this cause that's receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding and much more to create jobs like 'environmental journalist'. While all this is fine and dandy, there is a dark side to it, like any other lie. Environmental activists are convincing governments of developing nations that their countries can survive on electricity generated from solar or wind power which are more expensive and much more unreliable than conventional electricity obtained from burning fossil fuels. The richer nations will continue to use petrol power, but the poorer countries may not use any, even if they have the resources... which is a teensy bit unfair, don'tcha think?
Maybe someone can prove me wrong on this one [well, prove those scientists wrong]. I'm not discouraging you from turning off your lights and fans when you're not in the room or from riding your bicycle to the chemist's instead of taking your car because there are other reasons why we should do all that, not just out of fear of global warming. All I'm saying is that the next time you see a report in the media about global warming, watch/listen to/read it with a little bit of skepticism.