Global Warming -- A Summary.

A friend of mine recently asked me to prepare a short speech on the issue of global warming. Based on my reading on the internet, I wrote the following:

Global Warming, in and of itself, is no longer a science that scientists publish papers about but has become a distinguished political movement of our time. To understand the issue, it is important to get the facts straight. To put the whole issue into one question: is global warming man-made or is it occurring due to factors unrelated to man? Do we know that a warmer planet is harmful in the first place, before we start closing industries as fast as possible? Here are some facts to help make up your mind: The climate of the planet has changed for centuries without any help from humans. For instance, consider the fact that the warmest years of human civilization occurred much before the industrial revolution had happened. In fact, when temperatures were considerably higher in the medieval period, that period is referred to by scientists, as the climatic optimum – in other words an optimum temperature. In this period, Greenland, which is now covered with snow was a booming economy. All in all, higher temperatures are shown to be good for man than being covered by snow when life becomes impossible. Are carbon emissions causing the planet to warm?All the evidence points to the all important fact that carbon-di-oxide increased some 800 years after there was a rise in temperature. All of this combined with fact that scientists in the 1970’s predicted a large scale global cooling and anybody who disagreed was thought of to be a freak. However, no such cooling infact happened. On the other hand, the same people are crying over global warming today. The only “facts” that the global warming alarmists show is a “consensus” of a number of scientists who think that the planet is warming because of man – and the dissenters today, like the 1970’s are turned away as freaks. But consensus is not the way of science. For instance, Galileo was prosecuted because the consensus was that the world was flat. If it’s science that we are concerned about, then its facts that matter, not consensus. If global warming alarmists have their way, it is the developing countries who will take the worst hit if we indulge in carbon trading or put a limit or close down industries. The thing to understand is that even if we decide to combat global warming, we will be sacrificing a poorer generation for a richer generation in the future.

Considering all the above facts, could we say that these alarmists do not know the facts. Obviously not. Ignorance cannot be a plea. It's pertinent to ask: if facts don't motivate the policy behind the green movement, then what does? It cannot be imagined that people like Al Gore who have millions of resources at their command couldn't get to the evidence. Global warming alarmists or environmentalists are anti-development and anti-man. It’s a radical statement to make but conforms to reality. How many times have we heard to keep the wilderness “pure” instead of “corrupting” the earth with malls and buildings? Or consider environmentalist claim that until man hopes to rejoin the nature, we can only hope that the right kind of virus can come along. Everything man needs, from matchsticks to airplanes violates the “rights” of rocks, trees and weeds. If we are interested in uplifting humanity out of poverty, it is important that we throw global warming nonsense out of the window – and proudly assert a pro-life philosophy instead of listening to the man haters.