Entwined amidst the suffocating humidity in the air, I sit outdoors. Smeagol* is golluming away perched on my lap and the ground feels like red-hot branding irons melting their way through my skin. Beads of sweat are steaming off my brow and my clothes are plastered to my skin like leeches. I hear the bone-dry throats of birds squeaking a subdued twittering as the sun has us enveloped in its majestic, blinding glare. A sigh drifts from my lips…
Summer 2012, as you all may have observed has felt like a season-long vacation in a furnace! Something else that I have witnessed everybody noticing is how theories about global warming and climatic crisis have proven true in all their sizzling, feisty glory. A fair chunk of the blame goes hurled at the greenhouse gas effect. Now, to me climate change doesn’t seem that uncomplicated to be caused by just one factor. I find digesting the hype that circulates around this phenomenon a smidgen bit taxing, so I had Smeagol help me research and this is what he has instructed me to say:
To start off with, Discovery’s Mythbusters have an episode investigating the effect of carbon on global heating, knowing which made me really excited (who doesn’t find Mythbusters cool?). The well designed experiment does show that greenhouse gases cause heating. It might be interesting to observe that regardless of the temperature rise in the greenhouse gas chambers, the control chamber did too suffer the same fate in the end. It was also observed that methane, despite its lesser concentration had a greater heating effect. So shouldn’t climate heating have occurred many decades ago when natural gas reserves were less depleted? And a question of note: why is carbon dioxide always publicized as a bigger threat, as the actual face representing global warming?
But what deflated my excitement a little further was how they gave their verdict without first considering the other mechanisms that go on in the scenario. For instance, the earth’s anti-greenhouse effect in which it emits out infrared radiation and also carbon consumption by photosynthesis was neglected – both of which counter the greenhouse gas effect. Carbon dioxide increases shouldn’t decrease the earth’s existing self-cooling capabilities, they on contrary would adapt to it. One might argue that these are merely subtle flaws in the model, but then again subtlety shouldn’t pique us since we believe a 1°C rise (or 0.7 °C from real statistics) to be the cause of catastrophic apocalypses.
My next discovery was a FAQ type page at Greenpeace’s website about greenhouse myths. Reading that page left a horrid, sour taste in my mouth and expresses nothing but condescending narrow-mindedness on Greenpeace’s part. The author of the responses just goes by shamelessly ridiculing everything like a biased snob in the most nose-wrinkling manner possible! They might seem suitable and witty to the gullible readers but honestly it’s quite the opposite of what you’d expect from philanthropic, humane, nature adorers! They could have at least bothered their sorry backs with looking into the counter-theories, or even find loop-holes in them and not just blandly berate them.
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary that aims its arrows at debunking the greenhouse gas effect. Contributors include professors from prestigious universities like MIT and The University of Virginia and Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace (take that Green-grease!). The full list of contributors is here. You can watch the documentary here, that is if you’re not too paranoid of it numbing your brains a bit – it’s a long one! In a nutshell, the documentary discusses all possible political and scientific reasons why the greenhouse issue is a myth. It claims it to be ‘a lie’ and ‘the biggest scam of modern times’, which it probably is as it can be quite an effective means to play with people’s conscientiousness. It also talks about organizations that gain monetary advantages as more finances are invested in climate research, organizations that we should suspect Green-grease being affiliated with. -_-
I also stumbled upon the information that climate change hasn’t always been man-made. There have been records of a certain Medieval Warm Period that had temperatures as high as today. A National Geographic article talks about a distressing period of freezing temperatures called The Little Ice Age. Furthermore, after the Second World War there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions when we would have expected temperatures rising to Himalayan heights, but what happens? Another ice age that continues for four decades after 1940. Is this the result of faulty observations, pure coincidence or some secret climate change cycle that the earth undergoes? All three of these issues are much argued about, so we just can’t really say!
Before I wrap this post up, I should point out that I am in no way close to even a shoddy, blurred image of what an expert is. This post is just a record of my observations of what others have said about this issue and a novice’s opinion of it. It’s at least better than being a disinterested wall of bricks about it (we’ll leave that as Green-grease’s responsibility). So, I encourage you to share your opinion down below as well!
*Smeagol is what I call my laptop. I am its ‘Precious’ and squander my life in its enticing aura, just spellbound!