Are you seeing carbon footprints on many of your usual shopping products?
Take for example a simple carton of orange juice, something that we would all think is part of a healthy diet and one of our ‘5-a-day’ fruits and veggies.
According to the ‘not from concentrate’ orange juice carton I recently purchased:
“The carbon footprint of this juice is 400g per 250ml serving and we have committed to reduce this.
By comparison the footprint of Tesco from concentrate ambient orange juice with bits is 150g per 250ml serving which is lower because less energy is required to chill and transport from concentrate juice than not from concentrate juice.”
So why are we being made to feel guilty because we want to buy the healthier ‘not from concentrate’ orange juice instead of the less healthy ‘from concentrate’ orange juice?
The ‘reason’ given is that if we reduce our carbon footprint then we will have a much healthier planet to leave to our children and grandchildren.
But is this ‘reason’ accurate, is it in any way true?
And furthermore is humankind actually responsible for the apparent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? Is global warming solely due to manmade CO2 emissions? Is it really all our fault?
The governments and ‘their scientists’ all say it’s true, so why is there any discussion on this matter? According to Al Gore the science is settled.
Unfortunately no matter how often Al Gore says it and no matter how many ‘inconvenient’ films he makes to try and play on our guilty consciences, the science is NOT settled, at least not in the way he says it is.
More importantly, real science is never definitively settled, it always develops in line with the best evidence. That is the nature of true science, it is an ongoing investigation.
As Albert Einstein said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
And there is scientific evidence that refutes Al Gore’s claims because it hypothesises that climate changes are natural and are not driven by manmade CO2 emissions.
Dr Roy Spencer PhD, is one of many scientists whose research supports the hypothesis that global climate changes are natural.
His work can be seen on his website http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
On this website there is a section called Global Warming 101 in which he states that “….manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability.”
Might not be measurable? Isn’t that what the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore et al have been doing, measuring manmade global warming? Did they really forget to factor into their calculations the most potent force of all, the force of Nature?
So where does this leave us with our decision about which orange juice to buy?
Yes, we do have to be responsible and make appropriate decisions that affect our world, but they must be based on accurate information, not on misinformation.
This is not a discussion on pollution nor on the issue of ‘energy’, they are separate issues and not the point I’m making here. The point I am making is that the whole carbon footprint ‘guilt trip’ we are being made to follow is based on what can only be called pseudoscience.
It is, however, a scientific fact that CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist in the first place and that increasing CO2 will not be detrimental to the planet, in fact it will be extremely beneficial because it will promote plant life.
Which makes me wonder what do these ‘scientists’ think they are doing by trying to reduce CO2?
Are they really trying to achieve a reduction in plant life?
And if so, why on earth would they want to do that?