The global warming hype is omnipresent. You can’t turn on a news channel or read a newspaper without being dictated the ‘global warming’ issue. Although the ‘global warming’ (or climate change) theory is really just a prediction the media report on it as if it is a fact. Why is there so little attention for theories that oppose the ‘global warming’ theory?

You have to hand it to the global warming theorists: they use a brilliant strategy. From now on I will use the term globiwarmis^®™ for ‘global warming theorists’ to save some typing. Their strategy is to predict doom and adopt the ‘act now!’ solution. There is really no way that the globiwarmis can lose. Here is how…

Suppose that global warming:

• Happens. The globiwarmis can claim the ‘told you so‘ ground. “We should have acted when we could” is the triumphant glory. Oh by the way, we are still having the warming problem but by then the globiwarmis won and will have no attention for the problem anymore, only for their thesis.
• Doesn’t happen. There is no global warming. The globiwarmis can claim the ‘our action helped’ ground. There is no way of telling who was right and who was wrong. The globiwarmis will claim “because we signaled the warming early and we acted immediately we were able to stop (prevent) the global warming. We are the heroes that saved the day.”
• Doesn’t happen but global cooling does happen. Once again the globiwarmis can claim the ‘our action helped’ ground. Once again there is no telling who was right and who was wrong in the first place. The globiwarmis will claim a super-win and praise their immediate action. The next massive vulcano eruption will set us straight.

Now what is there to gain for the ‘no global warming’ theorists? Nothing really. If global warming does happen the no globiwarmis are obviously wrong. When global warming doesn’t happen the ‘no global warming’ theorists are not right. Noooooo it’s because the globiwarmis prevented the disaster because they “acted now”. So being a non globiwarmi will make you a loser before the debate really started. A non globiwarmi can not win. Not a very attractive spot to be in. And that is without considering the loads of criticism that non globiwarmis get for expressing their views.

I used the winners and losers paradigm on purpose. I feel the current level of discussion is focused too much on discrediting “the other side”. Instead of just insinuating supposed fallacies in the opponents theory try to find evidence for that. Try to rise above the “I’m right”, “No, I’m right” quarrel.

This kind of stuff fascinates me. So I try to read up on both the globiwarmis theories and the non globiwarmis theories. It’s hard for me (as a layman) to take an educated stand on this. I have to rely on the opinions of the experts. I do expect to get information from both sides in equality. However I do notice that the globiwarmis tend to silence the non globiwarmis and that worries me a bit. I do read about non globiwarmis claiming that they don’t get a podium for their theories.

Fortunately the internet allows everyone to be heard. So whenever I find something not mainstream I read it. In this case I came across an article from John Coleman (co-founder of the wheather channel, currently working at Kusi an independent news TV channel).

Whenever I read someones article and I like it I want to check the authors background. I want to make sure the person has no hidden agenda. When a car manufacturer claims that driving a car doesn’t affect the environment I discard the claim since the manufacturer obviously benefits from spreading that claim.

As far as I could check John Coleman has nothing to gain from either denying or supporting the global warming theory. Personal benefits or benefits for people closely related to him are hard to check so I can never be 100% sure he is unbiased or not. Combined with the fact that he is a meteorologist makes him a viable source of information to me.

So here you can read his interesting column on “Global warming: the greatest scam in history”

Like I said I’m a layman and I can’t tell what is correct and what is false. You decide for yourself. As far as I’m concerned I tend to be skeptic on the whole global warming issue. I tend to believe that human CO₂ production is insignificant compared to what oceans and swamps produce. Factor in all vulcano activity of the last 10 years and the activity of the sun and I think that is your reason for the supposed warming of the earth.

So if you don’t believe the hype of global warming then why on earth would there be such a strong lobby on global warming? Why is there a movement trying to raise this as a global issue, for all mankind? I don’t know. I do know however that finding a common “enemy” is a good way to unite people. Why do we need that now? Can it be that this is not about the CO₂ pollution but about  how the scarce energy resources of planet Earth must be redivided? With emerging economies in Asia the need for resources is growing wild. Wood, water and oil is the fuel for the emerging economies. Is this all about redividing the natural resources?

You know how people are. If you tell them to cut down on resource usage because we need to share them with others people will go “no, I need my resources. Give me. I need more…” However the scare tactic never seems to fail. Tell them to cut back on resource consumption to save their own life and that of their children, you might succeed…

For what its worth: last summer in the Netherlands was ‘cool’ with temperatures below the average summer. I don’t know how they do it but the globiwarmis are already doing a great job of neutralizing the effects of global warming over here…

This entry was posted on Friday, November 9th, 2007 at 0:16 and is filed under opinion, political, tin-foil hat. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.