I've done my best to clarify this issue of climate change, but I get a sense that some confusion still persists, so let me state my position again.
I'm not by any means anti-science. I have great respect for the advances in scientific knowledge and its potential to solve the problems that mankind faces and increase our prosperity and well-being.
What I object to are the biased representations of the science of climatology for political purposes. The science has become contaminated with political and economic motives which have the effect, in reality, of diverting funding from projects that might be more beneficial for mankind, towards investments and subsidies in alternative energy which tend to introduce additional problems of increased energy costs and/or reduced reliability of energy supply.
In order to justify such funding, exaggerations and even downright lies are broadcast, and those with little understanding of the nature of the scientific methodology tend to accept the flawed predictions that a catastrophic change in climate due to CO2 rises will result if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.
Some of those whom one might think should know better, because they have qualifications in some discipline of science, tend to jump on the bandwagon of CO2 alarmism because climate research is their career and livelihood and/or they can probably justify their unscientific stance of certainty on the issue, on the grounds that the development of alternative and clean energy supplies will eventually be of benefit to mankind regardless of the truth or falsehood of the negative claims about CO2 rises. In other words, the ends justify the means.
In some respects I sympathise with this last point, that the ends justify the means. If one has to lie in order to get people to behave sensibly in their own interests, then so be it.
I personally believe the development of solar panels in conjunction with efficient, durable and inexpensive battery storage which doesn't rely upon rare earth metals and relatively scarce metals such as Lithium, has a tremendous potential benefit for mankind, in the long run.
I understand quite well that creating a scare about the disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels might well be the most effective way of galvanizing public support for the expensive and sometimes disruptive transition to renewable energy supplies.
As a person who lives in a developed country, in a flood-free, cyclone-free and earthquake-free part of the country, I have little concern about my life being seriously disrupted by a natural disaster (although very rare events are always possible).
Personally, I would be overjoyed if my next car purchase could be a clean and efficient electric car, provided the initial cost was not significantly more than the equivalent petrol car, and provided the batteries were long-lasting and offered a quick recharge option. The opportunity of recharging the batteries from the electricity provided by my own solar panels, whch have already paid for themselves due to generous government subsidies, would also save me money on fuel.
Sadly, not everyone is in my fortunate circumstances, relatively secure from the effects of natural disasters. So many people throughout the world are very vulnerable to the effects of floods, droughts and storms, and there is no doubt that such extreme weather events have occurred in the past, continue to occur in the present, and will also continue to occur in the future, regardless of CO2 levels.
All the investments that have taken place in alternative, clean and sustainable energy supplies, will not protect those millions of vulnerable people from the continuing effects of natural, non-CO2 related, extreme weather events one whit.
In fact, such people, especially those who are really poor, might be even more vulnerable to losing their property and lives as a result of extreme weather events, because fixing their predicament will be more expensive if energy prices rise because of the legislative imposition of renewable energy sources.
How would you feel if you were a poor person living in a ramshackle house in a flood-prone area subject to a devastating storm every couple of decades, and you were told that all the money spent on renewable energy supplies would ensure that when the next storm arrives, the number of deaths will be no more than has occurred in the past because we have spent trillions of dollars reducing CO2 emissions?
The following article, which is also based upon scientific research, provides a more positive, alternative view about the effects of CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
