Saturday, 19 December 2015

Why Not Try Converting Water to Oil?

Dear Reader,

There is a story (said to be true) about a holy man of recent times who demonstrated that he could change plain water into oil. So convinced was an entrepreneur, he said to the holy man, "Why not convert the whole ocean, and then we can make a fortune?"

It (surely) does not take too much savvy to work out that such an idea is foolish nonsense. It should not need explanation that the oceans help to balance the life on planet Earth, and greatly contribute to weather conditions. etc. etc. We don't apply this kind of idea as it would (most likely) simply and quickly lead us to a doomsday situation.

That being the case, can't the same kind of logic be applied to fracking? It seems to me that the fracking concept is also capable of bringing about a doomsday situation. There is a great concern that our water supplies could be affected, and some have even suggested that water is a communications system in its own right; equivalent to the blood supply in our own bodies.

The website (December 18, 2015) states:
[The USA state of] Oklahoma has been a hotbed of frequent and ongoing earthquakes ever since the state's fracking boom kicked off in 2009. Before 2009, Oklahoma had two earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater each year, but now there are two a  day. In the past year alone, there have been more than 2,100 earthquakes of magnitude 1.5 or greater.
Are we not alarmed, therefore, that our own UK parliament has casually (yes, casually) passed regulations to allow the exploration of fracking to take place under our National Parks?

In the past week or two, not only has fracking gained an easy green light, but there has also been a world-wide consensus agreement on limiting climate warming. As I wrote last week, though Climate Change must be a reality, the notion of warming being the root cause is questionable.

It seems, therefore, that the notion of true democracy being in existence should be knocked on the head. All the consensus agreements that have been reached (including the most recent UN resolution on Syria) all seem to miss key issues. We should consider ourselves as being misled. Why are we being misled, I wonder? 

Please feel free to Mail me!

Sunday, 13 December 2015

A Cold Response To The Notion That The Climate Change Issue Is Solved

Dear Reader,

I can hear them from here; the thumps of self-congratulation on the backs of the participants of the Paris Climate Summit.

Now I am not at all cynical about any attempt to address the Climate Change that patently exists (it's been a major concern of mine for 40 years), but when the sponsors of the Paris Summit are some of the world's largest energy creation companies, then you do wonder if there is more to the Summit meeting that we should worry about.

One sponsor was Engie. As a single entity, Engie is a massive energy company — according to the Brand Finance Brandirectory, it is the most valuable utilities company in the world, bringing in more than $80 billion in annual revenue. Engie emitted as much greenhouse gases in 2014 as the entire country of Belgium. And Engie isn’t the only company with ties to fossil fuels to be included as a sponsor at the Paris talks — corporations like √Člectricit√© de France (EDF), which operates 16 major coal plants worldwide, and BNP Paribas, one of the world’s top banks for financing coal production, are also prominent sponsors of the event.

In fact, is Global Warming the only issue that we should be concerned about? I think not.

Part of the scientific community denies that warming is the real issue.  The "Friends of Science" website is worth looking at: 

For example, one "myth" they cite is the notion that receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming. The fact is (they say) that  glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. 

There are a number of other "myths" they examine and are worth looking at.

In short, despite all the self-congratulation (and some would say that some step forward is better than nothing) it is my belief that we are a long way from the real truth behind Climate Change. And that what has been agreed will prove not to be of substantial help: how can you solve the entire problem by looking at just one portion of the argument?

In fact, I go further and suggest that the sponsors of the Paris Summit have colluded with other vested interests to simplify the science behind Climate Change for it it be digestible to the participating countries, and also to enable the vested interests to pursue (still harmful) technologies they have quietly been developing these past decades. There is nothing in the agreement that would (for example) prevent the UK's government from pursuing Fracking as an energy source even though we intuitively know that it ain't right.

I suggest that the real reason for the degree of Climate Change we are now experiencing is because of the collective damage - physical and spiritual - that we have done to our planet, particularly over the last 300 years. Hitherto, we have simply believed that the planet is there to be exploited... and despite what has been agreed in Paris, the same attitude will continue to prevail, mostly unchecked.

In short, we have been sold 'a pup' ... it looks attractive, and it's Christmas. But - just like the puppy - it will have to be discarded as soon as the reality of it's nature becomes apparent. 

If I were you I'd switch off all the heating and get along with wearing plenty of clothing ... to get into practice for the inevitable that may well be coming our way. The antidote is to delve deeply inwards - to the real reality of our lives: our spiritual selves.