By Rocky Wood

We all know the maxim that common sense just isn’t that common. Nothing proves this more than the current debate about Climate Change. ‘Global Warming’ has become the propaganda term of choice for those who make a living from scare tactics about the climate. Yet, brave souls in the scientific and political community are offering alternate views, views that receive scant regard in the mainstream media.

In a series of columns for carbon-sense.com we will investigate just how much, or little, common sense is being applied in the worldwide debate. We will expose the facts Al Gore and his cohorts don’t want the average citizen to know; and we will challenge the orthodox view that has enveloped the mass media and politicians of all stripes. More importantly, we will investigate the motivations of many of those who are on the climate change bandwagon – from simple economic avarice right through to an intent to alter the entire economic and political order.

Let’s start with a simple example – the Alliance for Climate Protection, set up by Al Gore. It’s aim? ‘A three to five-year campaign to educate people from all walks of life that the climate crisis is both critically urgent and something we can solve.’ The Alliance is trying to get people to sign a seven-part pledge, which requires countries and politicians to ‘join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 per cent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.’ Apart from the ludicrous demand of 90% reductions in the West the pledge is not constrained by date or other specifics and hangs on the generalisations of ‘in time for the next generation’ and ‘a healthy Earth’. Exactly who appointed these people to be making decisions on behalf of those of us in democrat societies? More importantly, exactly how is the US or the Australian economy supposed to survive and grow if ‘global warming pollution’ is cut by 90% in a couple of decades at most?

Before we think these pledges are meaningless to our own lifestyles let’s note that the two most powerful Democrats in the United States signed up – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Mysteriously, there are no reports of Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid reducing their own emissions by 90% – yet. And don’t hold your breath waiting.

To undertake our analysis of the Climate Change debate we can begin by asking the questions that cry out to be answered:

Is climate change actually occurring? Is there a man-made component to climate change (anthropomorphic global warming or AGW)? Can we actually slow, or alter, climate change, whether or not human activity can be shown to be a cause? Despite attempts by Gore and his Australian disciples, Peter Garrett and Bob Brown, to pretend the contrary there is no scientific consensus on any of these questions.

Is the risk to our future so high that we must make huge changes to our economy and our daily lives to mitigate that risk? If so, how much change is required? What processes should be employed in making decisions about these changes? Can a worldwide response be developed, considering the strategic, political and economic needs of Russia, China, India and the Third World? Who should make these decisions and how transparent must the decision-making process be? Who, apart from a few celebrities and leftist political movements decided that the most dysfunctional political entity in history – the United Nations – should have the authority to impose its will upon Australia, the United States, China and India?

Who stands to gain from the changes proposed and the vast sums of money that will flow from carbon trading, carbon taxes, government subsidies and the like? Who stands to lose?

What are the myths peddled by the environmental movements? What are the real truths that are lost in the debate?

What do we, as individuals have to do to prepare our families, our friends, and our communities for the inevitable changes that will be wrought either by climate change, or the reaction to perceived climate change?

What should be done to protect freedom of speech for sceptics, both scientists and commentators, who do not agree with aspects of global climate dogma?

Perhaps most important of all, how do we protect our hard-won social and individual freedoms from the corporatist assault by the political left disguised as necessary environmental protections?

All things considered, we’ve run hands-on with a huge amount of extraordinary laptops under 500, so you have a bigger number of Best Laptops For Businessoptions than you may might presume. Immediately, these are the best tablets under $500 that have become through our labs

Almost every change proposed by the environmental movement and their fellow-travellers involves taxes; fines; laws against certain actions, processes or products; regulation; or emotional blackmail. Almost every change has the potential to inflict economic damage on the developed world and eliminate opportunity for the disadvantaged in developing countries and the Third World. Almost every change has a political flavour – restriction of personal and economic freedoms.

Through these columns we will come to a better understanding of the facts relating to the Climate Change debate; the possible consequences of actions or inactions we as individuals and societies take; and the destructive aims of the Marxist-dominated environmental movement.

If we have one responsibility as individuals it is surely this – we must inform ourselves of issues that affect our families, our society and ourselves. Surely this means investigating the issues ourselves and not simply serving as earpieces for propaganda and opinion masquerading as confirmed science.

Topical Note:

The New South Wales State Government plans to make water restrictions in Sydney permanent, the decision ‘made on the basis of scientific evidence on the future impact of global warming on Sydney’s rainfall’. In fact, the real reason this decision has been made is glaringly obvious – the politicians don’t want to spend the money required to build new dams, water saving and water recycling infrastructure. And they don’t want the political hassles that go with selecting sites for dams and desalination plants.

© Rocky Wood, 2007
Rocky Wood has been a freelance journalist for 30 years, and is based in Melbourne, Australia. He is the author of four books and has published hundreds of articles in the US, Canada, the UK, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.