Some years ago, on a beautiful clear summer’s morning, I was sitting on a park bench near Cliff’s pavilion in Southend overlooking the Thames estuary admiring the view. The tide was high and as I looked out across the Thames towards Kent I noticed something strange. The other shore on the other side appeared to be underwater and even tall buildings appeared to be half submerged! Now I’d sat there before when the tide was low when one could clearly see the other shore with all the buildings standing high and dry so I knew perfectly well that what I was seeing was an illusion. That got me to thinking and made me realise that the illusion I was seeing was caused by the bulge in the water in the middle as it followed the curvature of the Earth.
I was stunned by my own realisation. I’d just seen for myself proof that the Earth was round and not flat!
And that’s the trouble with the whole concept of Human-caused Global Warming. It’s difficult to see for oneself that it is wrong (or right) which leaves us at the mercy of the protagonists on both sides of the argument.
Even going to a good global warming site like Whatts Up With That? (WUWT) makes one’s head hurt. Acronym-filled discussion there soon digress into a highly technical debate with everyone trying to convince readers of their credibility by revealing how knowledgeable they are about some arcane part of what is a very large, messy, complicated picture. The Earth’s climate system.
One could also (and this is much easier) set oneself down, pour a drink and watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ on YouTube!
So that’s why in part 2 we’re going to let our lovely planet do most of the hard work for us.
I’ve made the financial aspect of global warming part 1 as it is the most important. Also, being financial, it still leaves everyone accepting of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), with a decision to make independently of Part 2.
Part 2 is about whether the weather will, in the future, change in ways predicted by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by Humans or not and the effects this might cause if it does.
Part 1. Financial.
The Paris accord provides, at its core, a way of levying a tax on the citizens of ‘developed’ countries. Once these countries sign up to it their citizens will then be taxed according to their consumption of fossil fuels. The money this generates will then, in theory, be passed on to ‘developing’ countries after of course a deduction by the UN to cover their administration fee. The size of this fee and how much of any money left over after this will be paid to ‘developing’ countries is the first question one needs to ask.
The next question to ask how is how was it decided which countries are ‘developed’ and which are ‘developing’. To me it seems that countries that were formally known as ‘the West’ are now ‘developed’ and the rest are all ‘developing’. This explains how it comes to pass that one of the world’s fastest growing economies, communist China, which also happens to be one of the world’s bigger, possibly the biggest, contributor to AWG is ‘developing’ and hence will benefit from our largess.
In withdrawing from the Paris Accord, Donald Trump made mention of the fact that not withdrawing from the treaty would have left the US open to huge penalties if it failed to comply with its provisions. Interestingly, the wily old blighter ignored AGW completely, not bothering to say if he agreed with it or not!
This raises an interesting question for us in the UK. Should we, post Brexit, allow our government to sign us up to the Paris accord, or even worse, negotiate a Brexit deal with the EU that somehow leaves us shackled to it?
I’m strongly of the view that signing a treaty that extends beyond the next Parliament comes very close to being treasonous. Why should we accept having our hard-earned taxes (or money disguised as levies on energy and fuel) being given to and administered by anyone (in this case the UN) that we can’t boot out of office at the next election?
We should let “No taxation without representation” be our cry!
And now for two questions that no one is asking.
First: Will it work? Will it do what it says on the tin? Will the Paris climate accord save us all from all the horrors of Mrs. May’s ‘climate crisis’? The drowning polar bears and South Sea islanders, the sea level rise of less than an inch and the terrifying prospect of global average temperatures rising by one or two degrees by 2100? (With the UN and the Marxists in China running it what could possibly go wrong!)
Second: If there is indeed a problem with the climate why do we need the Paris Climate Accord to solve it?
What other options have been considered? Surely the nations of the world could get together and on a voluntary basis, discuss all the options that are out there without the need for an over-arching global structure?
We need sensible solutions arrived at by sensible people. It has not passed me by that we already seen the sheer lunacy of Drax running on woodchips, a lib dem style solution to climate change that actually makes things worse by INCREASING the carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. We also see orangutan habitats being destroyed to make bio diesel. (The list is long.)
Read Part Two of The Problem With Global Warming here