Over the past few decades, the western world has become obsessed  with the impending threat of “global warming”, and its been easy for people to jump on the bandwagon. With the bulk of the media on board, this madness has dominated the political landscape. Like many, I became concerned about the coming apocalypse. It was kind of hard not to, with it seemingly been given the stamp of approval by science. I soon learned however, that there was another side to the story, and we weren’t being told everything.

Unlike most other members of generation Y, I do not think that global warming is a problem, and as such, any attempt by the nations of the world to thwart it are futile. The incoming carbon tax that we in Australia are facing is certainly no exception.

I accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for most of the increase of its concentration in the atmosphere and that this has contributed to the warming in the 20th century. What I question however, is how much this contribution is and how much warming we will see as a result of our carbon dioxide emissions. Given that a doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to a direct warming of about 1.3ºC, no where near catastrophe, I question the ‘evidence’ supporting the positive feedback which is suppose to lead to this disaster.

While I am opposed to a carbon tax, an ETS and the large-scale implementation of renewable energy at this stage, I support research into renewable energy and energy efficiency. This is afterall, the smart way to go. It is good economically, environmentally in that it reduces pollution (real pollution) and helps to plan for the future, when we will have run out of fossil fuels. I do not support the blind investment in renewable energy at a point where they are not economically competitive. If and when it reaches a point where they can survive on their own in the market, then I will support it.

5 Responses to About

  1. Carl Adams says:

    I believe that there is an unrecognized third opinion in the climate change debate whose adherents can be named “climate change repudiators”. This group views the present debate as a deliberately engineered distraction from the real issues of environmental degradation that can only be addressed by abandoning the corporate globalization agenda. Practical and effective solutions must be based on sustainable self-sufficiency planned and implemented regionally and locally, rather than by an elite global plutocracy dedicated ruthlessly to ever-increasing wealth, power, and self-indulgence.

    My Home Page currently has a detailed presentation of this topic – “Climate change: the third option”:


    Any comments or other response you may care to post will be most welcome.

    Kind regards
    Carl Adams

  2. johngordon says:

    Protest Song
    AUSTRALIA (Whore of the world)

  3. Martin W says:

    A breath of fresh air nonconformist. Thanks for the efforts and very informative site.

  4. Ryan says:

    Here’s an infographic I thought you’d like that covers some of the ways in which “green” enthusiasm has often led us down the wrong track.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s