Clearly, the claims for and against man-made contribution to climate disruption around the planet polarise people just as much as cultural ideology.
There are quite a few reasons as to why a person will deny climate disruption. They range from ideological opposition to authority through to paranoia
that taxes will be brought in to curb CO2 production. However, curbing CO2 production is only half of the equation to solving the CO2 issue, the other
half of the equation requires that we also, simultaneously, take out CO2 from the atmosphere, because curbing CO2 production alone won't take anything
out of the air.
The man-made CO2 that is already in the air is contributing right now to the climate disruption and has been doing so for decades. The earth's natural
carbon-sinks are fully saturated, so there's nowhere for new CO2 to go, it just hangs around for a very long time in the atmosphere and is stirred and
circulated around the globe by natural dynamics in pockets of various densities. While CO2 is circulated, so is the heat, and year on year, while we
keep on producing new CO2 emissions, the CO2 being circulated gains more density, and of course the heat rises, which means effects go from local to
global, such as this heatwave.
The current heat snap being experienced by the northern hemisphere may well not be caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere, but what the CO2 is doing is
adding a few more degrees to the actual temperature, which is why heat records all over the northern hemisphere are being set, year on year.
You'll notice I am using the term climate disruption rather than climate change, and I do so because climate disruption is a far more accurate phrase
to use at this point rather than climate change. I don't accept that we are changing to anything as yet, but I do accept that the CO2 we are producing
is having a contributive effect to the intensity of the disruption.
Quite simply, our fossil fuel burning is taking us from global stable climates into long-term disruptive effects. For us to enter into a climate
change all the dynamics in play with regard to climate have to settle into either a cooler, a warmer, or temperate global climate. Only then can it be
claimed that we have experienced a climate change. If we continue on the path we have been on for the last few centuries, it may be that we will
experience a climate change into a far more warmer and seriously more uncomfortable climate. The disruption is obviously the pre-cursor to the slide
from one of the three types of climate into one of the other. Natural climate dynamics will always respond to variables that lead to destabilisation
of a current climate.
The only thing CO2 does is trap heat. However, it doesn't stop more heat from coming in. So over the decades, as the sun goes through hot and cooler
phases, the earth's natural climate dynamics can deal with whatever the sun sends our way, that is to say, when the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
work with the planet to do so. When any of the greenhouse gases bloom and grow through whatever dynamic, the earth deals with it by regulating its own
temperature via circulation dynamics and greenhouse capture sinks, a form of push-me-pull-you effect.
When the greenhouse capture sinks become over-saturated the gases remain in the atmosphere and start heating it up, and overtime as the gases
constantly increase, so does the heat, and this will trigger feedback loops as the earth tries to regulate the extra heat. When the earth's natural
heat regulation starts to falter and fail, global climate disruption is the result. If we don't take CO2 out of the atmosphere, the carbon sinks can't
do their job of taking CO2 out of the air, because they remain saturated.
This is our current position right now. We are doing nothing to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and remain on the same path with nothing but token
gestures to reduce CO2 production. Energy producers want to remain in control of energy production, and governments do not want a sudden earthquake
shift in their economies taking place. I don't doubt that energy producers would love to move away from fossil fuels and make the move to cleaner
types of energy production, but they want to be in charge of it, they want to control it, they do not want to go the same way as the other older
industries that declined. However, we are looking at essential natural reasons for moving away from fossil fuels, and not just economic ones. We are
all going to be responsible for the deaths of millions of people annually and globally if we don't work together to lower our own carbon
I won't hold ny breath on global cooperation. I am quite sure I won't see it in my lifetime, and you may not see it in yours.