Channels
Photo: AFP
Pollution
Photo: AFP
Are we guilty for global warming?
We humans do a lot of damage to environment, but climate changes are not caused by human activity
Do you remember Steve Urkel, played by Jaleel White, the star of a television show, ten years back, named "Family matters?" After causing one of his typical catastrophes, he would ask: "did I do that?"

 

The answer to the question, if human intervention can be blamed for the Global Warming, (a heated question, which measured in heat temperatures of arguments, would set global temperatures soaring), is in my opinion, NO.

 

We humans do a lot of damage to the environment, especially to our health, or to somebody else's health, but climate changes, in my opinion, are not caused by human activity.

 

Political issue?

There are many scientists who argue that average world temperature is not, and has not changed in the last years, experts like Michael Crichton, author of the bestseller, "State of Fear" is one of the leading investigators on the matter, and claims that the "Global Warming" issue is political and serves a certain group of scientists, who use faulty and partly data, to back-up their claim.

 

A second group of scientists, who are more or less convinced that the world is really getting hotter, blame it on the fluctuation of the world's climate, which changes from the Ice Age period to a very hot climate, and most probably at a certain point, in the next few thousand years reaches a peak and starts cooling down, back to a new next Ice Age.

 

They tell us that this change in climate is caused by super human causes, such as the wobbling of the earth, as our globe is not a perfect round body, and because eccentric gravity, it wobbles and causes variation in distance of the earth to our sun. In fact, these scientists claim, the temperature over the last 200 years is only 0.2 degrees Celsius.

 

Where are the proofs?

The alarmists are telling us, that due to global heating, sea levels will rise, but until now, nobody was able to produce any reliable proof of that fact.

 

But, even though, if the world warms up, as part of its warming cycle, we might get a gradual rise in climate, which will cause perhaps higher sea water levels, but also more precipitation (rain) that will change desert areas in agricultural farm land, and will partly solve shortage of drinking water needed in order to maintain humanity.

 

A general trend of believe, propagated by Green Environmentalists, is that change in environment is bad, which is of course, short sighted and incorrect, if we realize that one of our primer responsibilities on this world is to enable people to live.

 

Trying to save the desert lizard from dying out, because we changed its environment, is stupid, even if it is the last of this kind, provided that the change of environment serves human living conditions.

 

Experts saying that we had the hottest summer ever recorded, should take in account, that we record temperatures only over the last hundred years, and we have no idea on temperatures earlier, in this warming cycle and certainly not in cycles before the last ice age. Alarmists should remember that before we began polluting the air, (without presence of those nasty humans) a climate change killed all the dinosaurs.

 

I am not proposing that we should continue polluting our air by burning fossil oils, not because global warming, or reducing the Green-house Effect, which appears has also its positive sides, specially on fauna, but to stop polluting air we breath by spreading Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses entering our lungs, causing cancer and respiration deceases.

 

In actual fact, alternative and so called green energy will be the answer to the fact that fossil oils are getting scarce and expensive, while development of alternative power sources is developing fast.

 

Instead of insisting on being negative on developing nuclear, hydrogen and plasma technologies, which, beside military purposes, could provide healthier living climate, we advocate that sufficient funds should be allocated for scientific research on those natural energy powers, that could not only clean-up the air, but solve unsolved problems like disposal of wastes and clean-up our polluted water sources.

 

 new comment
See all talkbacks "Are we guilty for global warming?"
Warning:
This will delete your current comment