The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.
Share this review on
Please note this review focuses more on the issue about man's involvement in global warming rather than whether it is an urgent danger. This is the only review subject I could put it under, so please rate based on the content rather than its relation to the title. Thank you and enjoy.
Global warming is a very delicate and complex subject; far beyond the understanding of a naïve 18 year old, but I have decided to tackle the matter based on my opinions and evidence I have found from various sources. I cannot say that I am writing this without bias as I fully support the controversial, yet logical views that Mankind has a relatively minute affect on climate change and that we cannot prevent nor slow the effect of Global Warming simply by reducing our so called 'carbon footprints'. In no way am I denying the existence of an increasing global temperature, but instead indicating that this may not be an unusual concept as there is evidence promoting similar activity in the past. I hope you find this review both entertaining and thought provoking.
Climate, as you well should know, is governed by millions of factors and, although many would disagree with me, I describe weather as chaos. To very briefly describe what I mean by chaos; it is a mathematical theory, 'Chaos Theory', that dictates many occurrences as unpredictable and unstable phenomenon. It goes much deeper than that and becomes far more complicated than I need describe it for the purpose of my review. Basically Chaos Theory can be applied to weather forecasting, as although we do have a fair level of understanding on factors influencing the weather, there is still a margin of error associated with the unpredictable chaos that throws the equations out of context. This makes accurately predicting the weather impossible, which makes me wonder how we can predict exactly what is going to happen in the next 50 years or so regarding the climate. Maybe we shouldn't be as worried as we are being made to feel, but then it could swing the other way as well and perhaps we should be more worried about our future on this planet. I ask the question; what are we going to do about it? Well to be honest I don't really think there is much we can do because if we don't really know what exactly the climate is doing, then how can it be reasonable to take strong enough action to counteract these forecasts?
Many of the weather simulations are strongly based on increasing Carbon Emissions being the main cause for increasing global temperature; the rate of increase in carbon emissions is based on the predicted increase in mankind's 'carbon footprint'. I cannot see how this can be deemed an accurate way of making these assumptions as the natural world is responsible for more than 99% of all greenhouse gases (including carbon). There are even claims that the increase in Carbon in the atmosphere is actually a product of increasing
Pictures of Is global warming an urgent danger?
Graph indicating carbon as a result rather than a cause of global warming
global temperature rather than the cause. The graph in my review picture shows that the temperature change slightly precedes the change in CO2. Over the last 8 years or so, statements have been released on the news saying that we have recently experienced some of the hottest summers since records began. Well these records only began in 1861; less than 150 years ago, yet the Earth has been here for billions of years! These statistics don't even take into account the period of warming experienced in the 13th century of which strong evidence shows that the world was actually a whole degree hotter than it is now. Vineyards were common in this country during that time and are the reason why many pubs and streets have names influenced by wines. News reports have also stated that the increase in temperature has been especially dramatic since the 1970's. Yes true, but correct me if I'm wrong; were they not saying that an Ice age was on its way during that time? Therefore of course temperatures have increased dramatically since then, as if they were at the time deemed colder than 'normal', logically meaning that at least some of this rise is accountable for a return to a 'normal' average temperature. I have quoted the word normal in inverted commas as I personally find it laughable for anyone to state a climate temperature as normal. We have only been on this planet for a blink of an eye and our records of climate only began about 150 years ago; how is it even plausible to determine something such as global warming as an unnatural phenomenon or non re-occurring cycle? The fact is we cannot, because we do not have any records or evidence dating back far enough to give a certain answer. However based on the knowledge that the Earth has experienced hotter periods than we are currently going through, along with the coherence of sun spots, solar flares and general solar activity it is quite reasonable and logical to say that it is very likely to have occurred many times in the past.
This quote is taken from an IPCC report:
"A number of other factors are known to influence climate and cause change, particularly volcanic eruptions, variations in the energy from the sun and particles released into the atmosphere from natural resources."
This statement shows that the IPCC acknowledge the fact that other natural processes contribute to climate change, yet they choose to conveniently exclude any actual statistics based on these natural influences. They are more than happy to provide us with graph after graph highlighting percentages of CO2 emissions generated by the various industrial sectors, but make no comparison of these percentages with those of the natural factors. This is because they simply don't want a graph demonstrating to the public that more than 99% of all greenhouse gas emissions are in fact caused by natural reoccurring processes and that humans actually can only be accountable for approximately 0.04%.
The Government influenced BBC is constantly providing us with news broadcasts and environmental programs informing us of the dangers and causes of global warming, to instate fear into the general public. A propaganda I feel is totally unacceptable, as the subject of the matter is far too complex for most people to comprehend; meaning that they will generally accept what the TV tells them. Throughout school I was also brought up on the knowledge that global warming is caused by humans emitting too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has been taught through several generations now and makes it harder for many people to believe otherwise. I have always been sceptical of what politicians tell us; therefore I was able to accept a far more logical explanation much easier. In my view carbon taxes are actually a way of reducing the usage of fossil fuels and the rest of the world's natural resources, which is not a bad thing, but I cannot see how raising fuel prices and car tax is going to have any real effect. The only real effect I can see it having is damaging our economy as the cost of living increases. The government are currently promoting nonsense such as reducing 'your carbon footprint' and I find this highly irritable as they are not only just raising taxes they are now trying to promote a more energy efficient lifestyle based on the lie that we are greatly influencing the Earth's climate.
Below are some facts that support some of my views on global warming, they were taken from the following source:
Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Doomsday book.
Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.
What I have touched on in this review is but the tip of the iceberg and the debate descends into far deeper waters. I openly accept that I do not have a vast understanding of the subject, but I am able to interpret the facts logically thus enabling me to give a viable opinion on the matter. I strongly believe that we are in no way the major cause for climate change or Global Warming; as it has been broadcast. We are using up the earth's natural resources but this propaganda is not going to solve that, because people are always going to need mobility from cars and energy from power plants. Raising the prices is only going to damage our economy rather than dramatically reduce the energy consumption. The 'damage' we cause to the natural environment is a scar only to us and only affects us and other living things, it will not kill the planet and the earth will go on spinning regardless.
Many 'Greens' have described the human race as a cancer upon this world that is killing the planet; we are doing no such thing. If the climate is going to change in the way that many propagandists have described, leading to world wide disasters and in the worst cases, the extinction of mankind, then I subject to you that in fact, if anything nature is killing us. We have not been on this planet for long and it will not miss us when we are gone; so caught up are we in the crusade for 'protecting' the earth, that we have failed to realise the logical amount of impact we actually have on the course of nature. Mankind has a reputation for taking more credit than it deserves and blaming ourselves for climate change is one of the biggest 'rip offs' of all time.
If you have managed the time to sit down and read through this whole article then I am very grateful to you and hope that you have found it insightful and inspiring. It may be controversial to what the common majority currently believe but it is a much more logical explanation of climate change rather than just pinning it on humans. I have written this because I am continually frustrated by the familiar everyday 'news' stories about how the 'Smith family in Cornwall' (nothing against anyone from Cornwall called smith) are doing their bit to reduce their so called 'Carbon Footprint.' Such ignorance to the truth is painful to endure day in, day out and so this review has allowed me to simply let off some steam. You will not see solar panels or a silly windmill generator on my house!
Nature is killing us - pretty much spot on. I always chuckle when some asks me to save the planet. Surely the better message would be save humanity? The planet will still be here long after the stain of humanity has been removed. However, your opinion is not as logical as you may think. Whilst accusing the propagandists of misrepresenting human culpability in the current climate debate, your argument is equally unbalanced and biased in the evidence used to further your personal agenda. Surely the best places to look for evidence is in peer reviewed science journals where, as a matter of fact, all the current evidence pin-points that humans are having a rather large effect on the climate in tandem with the planets natural warming and cooling periods? Indeed it certainly makes sense to read stuff by people likely to know what they're talking about, than garnering knowledge from hack journalists and untrustworthy government sources, right? Alboy