Doom And Gloom...

In a week where the media has gone overboard about climate change/global warming and there has been a big conference in Denmark where Governments from around the world try to justify and explain that the world is warming up and we have to save the planet with often harebrained schemes that will cost eye watering amounts of money...I find myself virtually avoiding anything written or said about it.

I am not suggesting that I do not see or agree that things are not changing but I am sensible enough to know that whilst just possibly Humans do affect the environment and we should all think of ways to make infinite resources last longer or recycle etc...

However, the Earth always has and always will go through cycles where it is warmer or colder and certain areas will be affect this time and not the next.

The science is not settled in many cases, many of the models being used to estimate what will happen in future years is flawed and it's a guesstimate. It's if the world warms up by 1 degree, this will happen. The operative word being "If"

When I was growing up we were being told that we were likely to be heading again towards another ice age.

Unfortunately, many television news reports are not giving both sides of the argument or using language that is unbiased so many people just let what is said wash over them and do not question what they are being told take it as fact. I object to asking questions meaning that the Prime Minister calls us "Flat Earthers" which is comparing us to those who believed that the World was flat. The difference being that could be proved.

A silly example of how you can be taken in by how something is written...

A recent article about a pop star with a high profile in the UK at present said "Most men would like to sleep with her" there was no reference to which survey or study that had come from if any. In general some readers might take that as a fact but I see it as the writer of that article using her own view as fact that cannot be proved or disproved. It probably should not be used at all but might be acceptable if you changed it to "Many men would like to sleep with her" There is a subtle difference in the inference.

Some people who demonstrate and push for action to be taken to save the planet are no doubt genuine in their beliefs and you cannot criticise anyone in that situation but the cause has been hijacked.

There are loads of conflicting theories out there and they are not all silly and worth dismissing nor are the people who put them forward.

You have to look no further than the immediate solar system that we are part of and the surrounding planets, suns and stars. Sunspots, stars and suns collapsing, solar flares flying off the sun, the angle of the Earth's axis, the slowing down of the world as it turns, the world is more water than land and some land masses are and always have been lower and higher than others so they would always be affected(I do not dismiss the suffering of anyone living in such areas)

There is evidence(I listened to a series of programmes on the BBC World Service suggesting)that some dessert areas are starting to become green again so perhaps all that is happening is that areas that have been green and food has been plentiful will reverse.

And there is again some evidence to suggest that pollution and carbon which is feared by many experts can stop harmful things getting through our atmosphere so it protects and it could be that some of what is good for the environment is stopped from being lost because in some instances being colder could be a threat to our well being.

The Earth has been hotter before and it has been colder. In the UK's past it has been said that the South of England had vineyards and that was only in the 1800's.

And we haven't even talked about natural disasters that could change things very quickly, Earthquakes, Tsunam's and volcanic eruptions.

There are many blogs, websites and books worth reading and looking at that have given far more detail to the subject of climate change than I can ever hope to, it is very complicated.

Unfortunately, some of the most vocal on the topic and being full of doom and gloom are very selective in what they say and put forward as their reasons for their opinion.

One of the most vocal on the topic(I'm not going to mention him here)but it is said in many many places just recently gave a speech at the conference in Denmark and someone who supplied and worked on a report with him and was quoted in the speech criticised what was said and later on it had to be retracted.

This same person who talks about everyone reducing their use of power and their carbon footprint jets all over the world making speeches and they say that his home uses more power than many households do in a year.

There is a lot of do as I say and not do as I do.

In this same week once again the utility company that supplies our power have given us 4 free energy saving light bulbs but they are all slow in lighting up when switched on they are not immediate. They are classed as the equivalent to soft lighting(most people want a bright light and find low light affects there eyes)and especially people such as myself whose eyesight is not what it should be. Most are still a strange shape so they are unsuitable for purpose and finally most people need at least for a centre light in a room a 100-150watt bulb and those supplied for free are said to be roughly equivalent to a 60 or 65watt bulb so they are going to be very dim.

Why don't they supply some at least similar to a 100watt? Or if they are dimmer because of them being in soft white, supply some that are more powerful perhaps 120watt or higher because when they are used the effect will be reduced because of the way the bulbs are manufactured.

I am afraid that the more this topic comes up on the news I am avoiding it, I could quite understand people becoming bored with my own opinions on the subject and even for being criticised because if you do not keep informed on such matters what right do I have to have an opinion?