The price of dissent on global warming
According to Wikipedia, David Belamy is an English botanist, author, broadcaster, and environmental campaigner. He is also a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming.
Bellamy first came to public prominence as an environmental consultant at the time of the 1967 Torrey Canyon disaster. He has written and presented some 400 television programmes on botany, ecology, and environmental issues. Bellamy is the originator, along with David Shreeve and the Conservation Foundation (which he also founded), of the Ford European Conservation Awards and has published over 80 scientific papers and many books.
Recently, he wrote an article, “The price of dissent on global warming (The Australian):”
WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.
David Belamy goes on to talk about why he says that.
If you have the time, the comment section is also quite interesting.
Thank you Mike (Staying Alive blog) for bringing to light another great article.
Back in August, I posted an article entitled, “Climatic Cycles … who’d a thunk it” where I share information from the article, “Fire and Ice – Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming (BMI Special Report)” (And yes, I do think that weather instead of whether is a pun on words.)
Like David Belamy, and many others, I have been very upset about the rain forest being destroyed for many years and the loss of some of the most amazing biodiversity and indigenous culture on the planet. And like anyone with a brain, I am very concerned about pollution (at every level) and what it is doing to our world. And as long as it’s efficient and doesn’t create higher food costs, I am very much in favor of alternative energy solutions.
Recently, I saw a very good timeline on this subject over at The Old Farmer’s Almanac, “Is Global Warming on the Wane?”.
I do think it’s important to get back to basics where we can. Some are better able than others to do so. But to talk about pushing carbon taxes and buying credits to appease the ‘carbon gods’ and make people ‘feel better’ about their so called carbon footprint may be a bit over the edge when there are so many starving people around the world.
And there are real concerns about global companies, like Monsanto that provides a huge percentage of the seeds used around the world, (in 2006 they were reconsidering their 1999 statement on NOT making use of technology (read: patents) to create terminator or suicide seeds), beginning patent war with the world surrounding seeds and techniques for breeding:
Biotech Giant Monsanto Revises Pledge on ‘Suicide Seeds’:
The threat of so-called ‘suicide seeds’ being used in commercial agriculture has become greater following a change of policy by Monsanto, the world’s largest GM seed and chemicals company.
The genetic-engineering giant made a public promise in 1999 not to commercialise ‘terminator technology’ – plants that are genetically modified to produce sterile seeds. Now Monsanto says it may develop the technology after all – suggesting that it would use Terminator seeds in non-food crops such as cotton, tobacco, pharmaceutical crops and grass, and does not rule out other uses in the future. (1)
In response, Greenpeace joined over 300 organisations today to demand that the current global moratorium on terminator technology is maintained, because the use of sterile seeds threatens biodiversity and could destroy the livelihoods and cultures of the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seed.
More here and here and here and this information on wikipedia:
Throughout 2004 and 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits against many farmers in Canada and the U.S. The lawsuits have been on the grounds of patent infringement, specifically the farmer’s sale of seed containing Monsanto’s patented genes–which require the farmer initial purchase of the seed and its technology–unknowingly sown by wind carrying the seeds from neighboring crops. These instances began in the mid to late 1990s, with one of the most significant cases being decided in Monsanto’s favor by the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5-4 vote in late May 2004, that court ruled that “by cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants (canola farmer Percy Schmeiser) deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly.” With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes.
As of February 2005, Monsanto has patent claims on breeding techniques for pigs which would grant them ownership of any pigs born of such techniques and their related herds. Greenpeace claims Monsanto is trying to claim ownership on ordinary breeding techniques.[6] Monsanto claims that the patent is a defensive measure to track animals from its system. They furthermore claim their patented method uses a specialized insemination device that requires less sperm than is typical.[7]
In 2006, the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the U.S. Patent Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers. In the first round of reexamination, claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.[8] Monsanto has since filed responses in the reexaminations.
I just think there are much more important things to worry about regarding the environment, governments squandering tax payers’ money (for generations) on a bucket with major holes in it that Ron Paul and other Austrian economists have predicted (thanks Ice – The Ice Blog), and feeding the world’s population by helping them get what’s needed to do it themselves through humanitarian ways (not through taxes at governmental levels, but through charitable/religious organizations that people voluntarily choose to donate to) — rather than worrying about carbon footprints and carbon credits so people can go on doing what they are going to do anyway (but somehow feel better about it because they paid to appease the ‘carbon gods’), and global warming/cooling cycles that are a normal occurrence since the beginning of the world.
