Who Believes in Man Made Global Warming?

December 19, 2009 · Posted in economics, problem solving 

A leader goes first and invites others to follow. What are the leaders doing? When there is an obvious serious problem people band together to solve it. They put aside their differences and tackle the problem head on. They do the most they can to fix the problem. The exact opposite is happening regarding global warming.

Basic rule of systems: If you understand the design, you can predict the effect. If it doesn’t do what you think it will do, it was designed to do something else.

Supposedly Global Warming will harm all life on the entire planet. In other words we are all supposedly in the same building and its on fire. Can you imagine people in a burning building arguing about who will pay for dinner when the building is burning to the ground? No! Everyone would get out of the building as fast as possible. Some would volunteer to help those that can’t walk. Others would try to put out the flames once they were safely outside. No one would stand around inside and watch it burn. But that is exactly what the world leaders are doing. That is very strange.

Most of us don’t have access to the information the world leaders have or what they actually think. So rather than point to information you might not be able to confirm, I’m going to walk you through some logic with information everyone has.
Al Gore is probably the #1 leader of the Theory of Man Made Global Warming. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the theory. Al Gore has traveled around the world (mostly on private jets and in stretch limousines) saying carbon dioxide is changing the climate, melting the ice caps, killing the polar bears and raising sea levels that will wipe out cities. That is very scary stuff. If you believed that how do you think you would react? If you believed in your heart CO2 was truly destroying the planet wouldn’t you do everything in your power to reduce how much CO2 is being released? Wouldn’t you cut your energy usage to the bare minimum? Wouldn’t you get rid of everything you owned that wasted energy or released any CO2 at all? Someone who really believes the sky is falling doesn’t go sun bathing. They run for cover.

Al Gore started banging the gong about climate change in 1992 when he published his book, “Earth in the Balance”. But it took him 15 years to install solar panels and a geothermal system at his mansion which is estimated to use between 12 and 20 times the energy of the average home. In fact it wasn’t until after he was intensely criticized that he finally increased the efficiency of his mansion in 2007. But he still lives in a huge mansion that pumps CO2 in to the atmosphere. If you believed the Earth was really in the balance would you take 15 years to do a few home improvement projects? Or would you decommission the mansion and move to a small super efficient home?

Al Gore has talked many times about being carbon neutral. Whether he is carbon neutral or not doesn’t matter. Is being neutral consistent with what he is saying? If you really thought the world was facing a deadly emergency from too much CO2 would you be carbon neutral? Or would you be as carbon negative as possible?

Now look at all the other leaders. They aren’t talking about how they can help reduce CO2, they are fighting about how much they have to give up. They are negotiating. If they really believed global warming was a threat to every living thing would they be bickering about who cuts emissions how much? If they really believed the world was about to end wouldn’t they be doing everything possible to save it regardless of how much it costs?

The leaders have access to all the best information and the best scientists. If those leaders are arguing over money, what is the theory of global warming really about?