Today I read an article on the Times online about the so-called Climate Gate. It is about the scepticism of some scientists regarding global warming and related issues, and how there is barely any available data on the exact impact of human activities on raised temperatures. This all came up as a scandal, giving way to the question: "so they have been lying to us, saying that the earth was not unnaturally warming up!?". I think this is no surprise that things evolve like this, once the issue of global warming has become private properties of the mass media. I'm not talking about corporations controlling media, although they have a fair share in the scenario of global manipulation. I am talking about an issue that ceased long ago to be of scientific relevance, and was turned into a political problem. That is also why politicians are now managing it, when it should be rather scientists doing it, and also telling the public the hows and the whys.The next step was to involve economists and demographers. The first started quantify how much Co2 we were emitting and how much we should be emitting, the latter started blaming countries like India and China because of their big populations: it was now their fault, because many pollute much, especially if they are so medieval that they don't know how to work with renewable energies. Everybody suddenly forgot that China (not Denmark) is now the world's biggest manufacturer of wind power station, that millions of Chinese (not Danes) cycle to work every day, and that in general the average Chinese or Indian has a simpler and cheaper life than the average European or American, eats less meat and drives less cars, travels less by plane, and so on. Many Chinese families have a human manure converter in the garden that provides them with methane for cooking and heating water. And they are the only country in the world that is strongly doing something for keeping population growth under control. China pollutes quite much only because it is a big country with a lot of people that happen to abide within common borders. Any Westerner pollutes per capita much more, and if the situation in China and India is changing, that's only because of Western influence and a wrong idea of progress that the West has promoted for centuries.The problem is not Co2 or global warming. Personally, I believe it's irrelevant and in away, the discourse is serving multinational corporations too. Suddenly, big business becomes "green", and we sell and buy Co2 emissions quotas as if they were banknotes from a board game. The planet may or may not be heating up because of human activity. That is irrelevant, and it may not be the case. The Inuit settled Greenland after the end of the so-called Medieval Warm Period, because there was ice again on the sea and their hunting territory expanded considerably. As they came, one day they could be forced to leave or to modify their sustenance means in order to survive. Before the Inuit several other peoples settled Greenland, Scandinavians included. All of them failed to survive, but not immediately; they stayed there for hundreds of years. The Inuit came as late as the 16th century, just a few hundreds years ago. They could be facing the same problems soon.But this is not going to happen, and that is exactly the point. Their lives are already changed by contacts with the West. because they are no longer fishing for their own needs only, one day they could end up without any more fish in the sea, just like in the Mediterranean. Back in Europe, there is only jelly fish in the sea (70% of the fish eaten in Italy is imported from the Indian Ocean), the earth is so much exploited, that it is no more fertile. Under natural conditions, the soil increases its fertility naturally, year after year; because of monocultures, the land does not yield anything if it's not artificially fertilized, and the natural predators of the plant infesters have long become extinct because of the pesticides. In developed countries, we are eating so much meat that we destroy rainforests to grow soy for feeding to animals. And it's not something new, we started centuries ago with our forests back home. Biodiversity is seriously at risk in many parts of the world. But this is no news.Our planet is fucked up, and even without global warming. What we've done to it is the result of millennia of our civilization, the civilization of exploitation. It's not only about modernity, it's about us. Monocultures are not new. The pilgrim fathers in America saw the Indians planting corn with beans on the same field, and then go hunting and come back to harvest after several months without ever working the land or having to let it fallow; then, they started growing fields where only corn was growing. But the problem became serious only after the we have become so many. And after we opened the first supermarkets, of course. Still today, they are fucking our minds telling us that it's bad to drive your car. Driving a car is not *bad*, it's stupid, if you can take a train and avoid leaving 4 seats unoccupied. What is really bad, is what they don't tell us: that eating beef is far worse than driving your car, that our seas are empty, that nothing grows on this earth any longer without chemicals. Burning stuff for power is not too bad; it is bad when you burn it to power your Bill-Gates-owned computer that is on 24/7 on Facebook.We don't need any "carbon-footprint-theory" and carbon trading to understand this. What is "this"? That our civilization is the problem.
See original: 
