Cloud formations are often fascinating. A grey, rainy day might seem like any other, but even so, each day is naturally unique. A few seconds are all that the elements require to modify their celestial compositions in ways that no one has ever seen before, and will ever see again.
This constant transformation, fleeting moments of metamorphosing clouds of vapour ⚀ defined by sunlight and shadow, and gloriously set off in colour by the braise of dawn and the embers of dusk, isn't it a modest, momentary reflection of the mechanism of the universe, and of life itself?

From such high altitudes, we far below, wending our ways in our little coloured vehicles, patiently waiting in traffic jams, appear to be like so many busy, frustrated ants full of their own importance. Yet we also seem to have reached such lofty heights of vanity that we believe we have the divine power of causing radical climatic change.

If one considers the age of the planet Earth (an estimated 4,543 billion years) and the fact that man started recording annual climatic temperatures as from the year 1880, the duration of 136 years in relation to the venerable age of our planet, is hardly enough time to enable us to affirm anything, certainly including our responsibilty for causing climatic change. Under such circumstances it would be absurd to jump to such conclusions. One might just as well assert that man was responsible for the Ice age.

There are also unofficial recordings of climatic abnormalities written by journalists and writers throughout man's relatively short history. Samuel Pepys records examples of abnormally hot Londonian summers in his diaries of the 17th century, for example. Uncommonly cold winters are vividly recorded by Shakespeare, as another example.

The universe has its own elliptical and maybe even spiralic cycles which not only determine our seasons, but also seasonal changes, and variations of climatic cycles.
It might not be overly pretentious to believe that human beings are more important than ants, but man reveals his hypocrisy when he affirms that his activities are causing what appears to be increasing climatic abnormalities, and must therefore assume the responsibility for them, but does nothing really decisive or consequent to resolve what he is asserting.

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that fossil fuel is partly responsible for 'global warming'. The fact is that we already have the technology to avoid having to rely on fossil fuel, but the world's economy and its geopolitical balance continue to depend on the production and commerce of fossil energy. So our governments make futile compromises, similarly to inordinately taxing cigarettes rather than banning their production. They try to make us feel guilty for driving cars that run on petrol that they can also heavily tax, and they pretend to encourage us to buy 'clean vehicles' without making them economically accessible or globally practical.

The vanity of believing, and then persuading the masses, that we are responsible for climatic change (and why not by extension, for creating new planets, black holes, and all cosmological phenomena?) is an extremely lucrative pretext. Dependency has always been a lucrative source. Our so called ecologists who know nothing about nature, the Marxists camouflaged in Lincoln green, would sooner rob the poor to finance their hare-brained schemes. Trying to reintroduce Eurasian wolves and bears in Central Europe to make things even more difficult for sheep farmers is an example of their ecological ignorance. They would rather make a simple individual who runs his little car on diesel fuel feel guilty and thus tax him as much as possible, than try to help him buy an allegedly non polluting electrically powered vehicle, and generalise the access of electronic recharge points in a far more practical way. They would sooner increase penalising taxes on fossil fuels than invest in so called 'clean energy'. They have no qualms about ruining the scenery of the countrysides with costly and relatively inefficient wind turbine generators, but they permanently maintain serious reservations about investing money in modernising nuclear plants and in resolving the security problems engendered by the plants' more economical, efficient and far more important power output capacity.

The claim that man has endangered his planet and must assume the responsibility of resolving the problem for future generations, is a precious political and economical pretext. A politically correct cause that is being milked unscrupulously and hypocritically. For as long as the world's economy is based on, and determined by fossil fuel, the farce performed by impostors and charlatans will continue.

Inevitably however, man is occasionally subjected to dramatic moments of truth, when the laws of nature, far more imposing, impressive, decisive and inexorable than any man-made laws, remind us who is really in charge and who has the final word.

(Scientific studies maintain that the Earth's temperature has constantly changed throughout the planet's history.
During the Phanerozoic it was warmer than it is in our day and age, but life has always managed to adapt to either excessive heat or cold. One cannot therefore maintain categorically that there is a correct terrestrial climate temperature.
Other evidence proves that carbon dioxide has always existed in the Earth's atmosphere, and that CO2 levels have risen and fallen naturally, obviously without the influence of mankind.
In fact for the greater part of the Phanerozoic, the levels of CO2 were much higher than they are today, and there were then no polar ice caps.
During the vast history of our planet there have been several ice ages through which important life forms naturally survived).

Cumulous, Stratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulonimbus, Cirrocumulus, Nimbostratus and Cirrus. 
For more such information, please go here.

Text and top image © Mirino. Lower image with thanks to National Geographic. Additional information with thanks to The Resilient Earth. February, 2016.

No comments: