Man made climate change is the biggest single issue of our time. Governments in the West have decided that carbon dioxide, caused by industrial man’s actions, is warming up the planet, and that if we don’t do something, we are going to destroy the planet. While the politicians may believe that the evidence is irrefutable, what is the actual evidence to back up this claim?

The global warming bandwagon has gathered such momentum that is it becoming nearly impossible to have a balanced discussion on the topic. A large and extremely powerful business sector has sprung up out of nowhere to serve the ‘problem’, and it will not take kindly to being told that it is surplus to requirements.

Furthermore, the policies that have been and are being introduced to attempt to curb this ‘impending catastrophe’ have wide reaching implications, and will not be turned around quickly. Policy makers take a while to get going, and when they do, the policy tends to hang around even when it has outstayed its welcome.

Manufacturers everywhere are required to use CO2 emissions as a yardstick for anything from fridge freezer design to measuring how environmentally friendly business activities are, indeed these companies even have the option to offset their carbon production by paying a company to go and plant trees somewhere else in the world. While everyone in the world seems to be asking how or what we can do to reduce CO2 emissions, isn’t it time we asked the question why? Is CO2 an issue in the first place, or is it just a lot of hot air?

It seems that nowadays the facts of global warming are largely undisputed. In 2003, a survey was carried out involving all 530 of the worlds climatologists. When asked whether they thought the scientific debate about climate change is over, 44% agreed, 10% were uncertain, and 46% disagreed with the statement [1].

In spite of this, the global warming naysayer is still very much in a minority, and not a popular one at that. The mainstream UK press and those who read it to form their beliefs are typically of the opinion that it is a problem that requires immediate action. Indeed the force behind the movement is so great that public admission of non-belief in (man made) global warming is met with considerable scorn.

What we can say without a doubt, is that the industry which has sprung up to cater to the ‘global warming show’ is worth billions of dollars, and employs millions worldwide. Budgets are continually increasing as worldwide panic sets in; recently, Barack Obama allocated $129bn to encourage solar power, hybrid cars and renewable energy. If it became clear that man was not causing global warming, what would all these people do?

When you are looking at a subject as complicated and unpredictable as the weather, I don’t think a consensus will ever be reached; there are too many variables. The split opinions of the climatologists is a case in point. I also suspect that they would be the first to tell you that it is more or a black art than a true science.

Like many other economic booms out there, sometimes its just easier to run along with the herd than to stand in the way and risk being stampeded. Essentially the precautionary principle when applied to CO2 and global warming produces a statement which looks something like this:

“If carbon dioxide produced by man’s industrial activities is responsible for the global rise in temperature, if we can cut our emissions to an acceptable level (whatever that may be), and convince every other nation in the world to do the same, then ultimately we might be better off than if we had just stood by and done nothing.”

Does this sound like a well thought out plan? Not really. It sounds very much like scaremongering, and action from a place of fear never yields satisfying results. When you go on to consider how much cash is being spent on a “just in case” scenario, it makes you wonder whether this money might be better spent elsewhere.

But, I hear you cry, if we are screwing up the planet, surely doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of how much it costs, I mean this is our planet we are talking about? Well, many UK citizens would agree with that statement, but it is a big IF, and not everyone has the luxury of such an insurance policy; many people are living day to day, and they want solutions now. Lets take the developing world, for example.

I suspect that to convince China, India, and Africa to reduce their CO2 emissions will be met with raised eyebrows. They really don’t share our concern. China is just coming into its economic stride, likewise the Indian subcontinent, and people there want to have the goods and services that we in the West have enjoyed for many years. Are we going to tell these countries that they shouldn’t use cheap energy to kick start their industrial machines “just in case carbon dioxide causes global warming”?

The UK government has a choice about how it goes ahead with these carbon reforms, even though the evidence is weak, and growing weaker by the day. But what we cannot do, is tell anyone else what to do. The Kyoto Protocol looks more and more absurd every day, as the target appear less and less achievable. The taxpayer will be paying an additional premium directly into the pockets of the businesses who work within the ‘carbon economy’.

The end result is that UK products and services will become more expensive, especially when competing in a global market with others who do not share our less than optimistic outlook on life. More likely, Western industrialists interested in the bottom line will welcome the opportunity to move their production to countries which don’t have such restrictive environmental legislation, thereby circumventing the legislation, avoiding carbon tax, and any reduction in carbon emissions. I doubt very much that the Chinese will be making use of our thriving carbon trading industry.

The political arena is not a clear cut case either. They realise more than most the oxymoron of ‘carbon neutral economic growth’. The two, more frequently, tread different paths; our current energy reserves, required for economic growth (transport, manufacturing, building etc) all release CO2 into the atmosphere. This, they tell us, is going to destroy the planet. So we have a clear choice; we can down tools and stop growing, or carry on as we have been. Seems like a fairly obvious choice to me.

My aim here is not to pitch into the global warming debate with statistics or evidence of any kind. Many such things exist, and can be gathered to effect any result required (see below). I merely ask you to look to your common sense to see the reality of the situation. It would be nice if more people didn’t just take the press’s word for it, and considered the situation from a logical viewpoint, the viewpoint from the basis of life itself. When viewed from this perspective, the premise seems ridiculous.

If you stand back and ask the question, why are we here? I know this sounds barmy but bear with me here, folks. What gets you out of bed in the morning? What is it that you enjoy about life? What is it that you enjoy about being alive here on this planet? Life is in a constant state of evolution, (yes evolution is still happening, were not done yet!) and we human beings are evolving just like all of the other life forms around us. We are creating new wonderful technologies to make our lives better. We are running faster, jumping higher, we are expanding our knowledge, we are improving our techniques for living, and we are having fun creating things that have not been before.

Joy lies at the basis of the eternal expansion of this universe, and man and his creative thinking is what drives that evolution. To suggest that we’ve reached a peak in our creation, and that now society is diminishing in some way, is absurd. We must have an excuse to continue to create. To invent new and better ways of doing things, of living, of having fun, or living more in harmony with our planet. If we cannot, we surely die because there is no desire and when desire is gone, so has life.

The debate on CO2 is a reflection of man’s creative efforts. It’s all good really, but it is based on a false premise; that man is responsible for the planet. Actually, this planet was created as a stable solid platform for man to create upon. It’s fair to say that there are forces outside of our creative control dealing with stuff like that. Let them get on with it. It’s no surprise that people feel overwhelmed when they consider how they will save the planet; it’s not their job.

What comes out of this scenario is many great things; alternative fuels, cleaner modes of transport, less reliance on foreign oil and consequently less wars over it, a way of life more in keeping with the environment and the planet, more efficient use of resources, to name but a few. All of these will be created. But the planet is fine regardless, and nothing we do can ever affect that stability.

Stand back and take a broader view. Think about planet earth, how it spins in its orbit without any input from man. Consider how it provides year after year more and more food and clean water and clean air. As a design, it has been pretty well thought through. Yet we stand here complaining about the minuscule amount of things which we think are going wrong and get ourselves into a mess about it. I’m sure we will continue to develop more ways of living that are cleaner and less polluting, but let’s not forget how much is going well, and how stable this planet is, and how the resources are actually infinite.

As time passes, and fewer and fewer people are seeing the devastation predicted by the doom-mongers, the tide is gradually turning in the global warming debate. It is also becoming apparent how much money is up for grabs to those who are happy to work within the field. Is the world really warming up? As I stood on my patio in London in early February, building a considerable snowman, I pondered the question myself. Of course my snowman building skill were a bit rusty. The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change was held in March 2009, and asked the question “Global warming, was it ever an issue”. It seems that some are already talking about the issue in the past tense.

I won’t suggest for a moment that George W Bush was wrong; but he did resist climate change policy for a long time. He also hails from the large and powerful Bush oil family, who naturally want to sell oil to the people. On the other side of the coin is Al Gore’s travelling global warming show, and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which has been show to scare school children all over the western world. The documentary grossed over $49m, turning out to be something more convenient for Mr Gore.

Had Mr Gore called his film something like “Global Warming, it’s probably nothing”, one suspects he wouldn’t have made his money back, let alone any profit. Instead along with his book, the movie turned out to be quite a profitable pitch for his ‘earth services’.

I do not mean to say that this is in any way bad behaviour; quite the reverse. It is natural for someone to be acting out of self-interest, even when faced with a very public role, and wielding considerable power. They might appear to be acting in altruistic ways, but the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) factor is always present. Money makes the world go round. Economics is where the power lies. Relationships, jobs, religion, politics, they are all about economics. Economics is driven by personal self interest to thrive. When you can see the world from that premise, it all starts to make more sense.

Martin Durkin’s 2007 offering “The Great Global Warming Swindle” took a contrarian view, suggesting that the issue has sprung up out of self interest of those who seek to profit from it. It turns out that not all of the world’s eminent scientists agree that man is warming up the planet. They actually argue that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations follows temperature rise, and not the other way round.

I anticipate in the near future a more balanced approach to the debate. It is currently extremely one sided and is producing an enormous amount of legislation. I also have no doubt that most want to live in harmony with our beautiful planet and will continue to find ways to do so.

There is no doubt that we can find better, more environmentally friendly ways of living. But as the carbon debate continues, I suspect that people will start to see how ridiculous a notion it is, and quite how brainwashed they have become by those who stand to gain from its continuation.

The new term Geo-Engineering is an interesting idea. Engineers believe that they have to act to do something about the global temperature rise. Some ideas touted have been, giant sailing ships spraying clouds of water vapour into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with iron to promote algal blooms which trap CO2 and then sink to the ocean floor, and my personal favourite, the giant sun shades in space to reflect back the sun. I wouldn’t want to live under one of those.

The planet is not in a state of regression; it is the best that it has ever been. It is evolving like all of the species upon it (it’s sometimes hard to believe this is the case with human beings, they are so short-sighted), it’s been around for billions of years and it will be around in billions more. As will human beings. Let’s put this issue into perspective; humans didn’t create the planet, and they won’t destroy it. There is a larger force at work, who’s done some pretty fabulous design work in the past. It’s all under control.

[1] Heartland Institute Study 2003