What Do You Really Think of Climate Change?

What Do You Really Think of Climate Change?

I got a good response from you following my comments on climate change on Tuesday. It’s seems you are skeptical of claims about climate change and, more importantly, of attempts by governments to fix whatever problem exists because of it.

A few of the comments are a little out there but hey, I’m not into censorship. Over to you…

Dear Greg,

Those who lack any rational argument for their beliefs invariably gravitate toward emotive rhetoric and hyperbole.  In the words of Macbeth, "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Whenever significant events occur, such as 9/11 and climate change, I always look at the big picture to put it in perspective.  9/11 for example, happened shortly after the fall of the Russian Empire, and the Berlin wall fell before that. This meant there was no justification left for arms manufacture, and as we all know, the US is heavily reliant on Arms sales to sustain their economy.  With one event, they fomented in the minds of people everywhere, the idea that anyone and everyone is a potential enemy.  In one fell stroke they assured Arms Sales forever. Brilliant!  Nothing I have seen since then has lead me to believe it was substantially different from that initial theory.

Climate change, due to the long term nature of its effects reminded me of the Insurance Industry — particularly Life Insurance.  If you buy and contribute to a life insurance policy all your life, the grandiose claims of returns are never guaranteed, and when it’s time to collect, you’re dead.

So, it’s highly unlikely your widow or beneficiary is any position to complain about the actual returns compared to the promised returns.  If Climate Change is happening, and it’s due to human actions, then the solution is to promote less waste, which means less production, and greater efficiency.  Not one suggestion to combat climate change has mentioned anything like conservation in response to climate change. Then, we have solutions suggested that spending more money will fix the problem, when in actual fact is was spending money to product things that got us into the problem in the first place — if their argument is accepted.

Added to that, the money from carbon trading ends up in dubious schemes that are supposed to combat climate change, but there is no way of knowing whether they do achieve anything in fact.  They are literally making money from nothing with the promise that it will make us feel better about saving the planet.  

If this is a scam, most of us won’t be able to ask for our money back in 50 or 100 years because we will be dead by then.  It has all the characteristics of a scam, and if climate change were real, the solution involves saving money, not spending more.

I congratulate you on your newsletter and regard it highly.

Hi Greg,

I think most people have no doubt that humans are dumping huge amounts of pollution into our environment and this cannot continue. Fossil fuels and a plethora of other harmful chemicals need to be reviewed and the solutions are already apparent such as using the energy within fossil fuels without combustion as in LPG fuel cells. The real debate about environmental pollution has been buried beneath the words “global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, anthropogenic and tax” and so for me the science is quite unsettled. In fact, the only people saying “the science is settled” are politicians or their hired experts and affiliates. Nothing is settled in regards to climate change and perhaps the following points should be raised:

1. Show accurate charts of historic Earth surface temperatures as far back as possible. I believe that temperature data has and can be obtained from drilling Earth core samples for pre-record collecting temperatures. We need to know if the Earth surface temp. is currently within a previously repeated range.

2. It was interesting how the Global Warming debate morphed into the Climate Change debate. Again historic Earth surface temperature records will probably show the Earth is still within a previous temp. range meaning that it’s quite possible that humans are not causing the climate to change as it has always changed. Does anyone think the sun may have more influence over Earth surface temperature than a little carbon dioxide? Many independent scientists do.

3. It is almost comical how governments and vested interests vilified carbon dioxide, indeed “a convenient method” to tax consumers. This is one of the most audacious cover-ups ever witnessed, throw attention away from more than 12,000 other very harmful and deadly chemicals dumped into the environment with reckless abandon every day, now everyone only talks about carbon dioxide. Am I dreaming? For example, many fishing estuaries are collapsing and of course the cause is, you guessed it, Climate change and anthropogenic carbon dioxide and certainly nothing to do with all the fertiliser, pesticide and other chemical run-off and dumping into oceans. 

4. The atmosphere contains way less than 1% carbon dioxide and Earth core samples show it was at much higher levels in the past than present today.  Higher carbon dioxide levels will positively impact plant life and hence benefit animal life and it won’t cause rising Earth surface temperature.  What about carbon monoxide, that is far more deadly than carbon dioxide and yet it never gets a mention. What about all the other gases and particulates released when burning fossil fuels, nope never a mention.’


I feel we are in sync to some extent. My view is that climate change is real. Is it naturally occurring as part of the natural cycle of earth’s time? Yes. Does human activity contribute? Yes, to a far lesser extent than the natural forces at work. Can humans influence it by their actions in future? Only to a minimal extent, hardly warranting the zillions of dollar proposed.

Hi Greg

I have no doubt that Global Warming is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the gullible public in history.

Basically the entire premise is CO2 is a greenhouse gas that gets “forced” by other things like water vapour which the IPCC have made models of – to show the earth will have runaway warming .

Modelled — you’ll note — not actual science.

Then, since the models we’re done in 1990 to the actual measured reality is there has been little or no warming for the past 18 years. Showing the models up for the rubbish they are.

Of course, the Alarmists told us the:

  1. Ice Caps would all be gone by now ( Reality – Antarctic Ice is at record highs and Arctic ice is within one standard deviation of the 10 year average )

  2. Polar bears will be extinct — all populations doing very nicely .

  3. Storms and hurricanes and fires would all be more frequent and fiercer – reality less common and less fierce

Etc., etc.

So then they want the entire Western World to bankrupt themselves moving to “renewable” to stop producing a harmless gas that promotes plant growth , that has been at FAR higher levels in the past without causing warming , and at the very worst MAY be a tiny , tiny influence in warming the planet . A planet that is between two ice ages and way colder that it has been historically.

Hi Greg,

To Mother Nature I say please continue doing what you’ve always done for millennia. For the bloodsuckers gorging on our salaries — I say "Laissez-faire". Worked for the Brits back when!

Dear Greg

The truth is I enjoy reading your articles as you obviously have a good understanding of classical economics and financial and stock markets — and a unique big picture slant on some things.

How much scientific, especially biological and ecological knowledge have you taken the time to delve into? Because, to come out with such a trite statement as “nature is amazingly resilient…we should be able to manage together without killing each other right?” — is breathtakingly naive and ignorant of the facts.

Truth is that 52% of Earth’s biodiversity was destroyed between 1970 and 2010: we are in the middle of last great and man-made extinction event while our population continues to expand. Most people who live in cities are blithely ignorant and none of our politicians are science trained — go figure. Neither is Rupert Murdock and he holds the powerful position of educating the masses.

Mother Nature is not very resilient at all when life cycles are simultaneously attacked on all fronts. With the 4 degree warming by 2100 that is now locked in through our continued addiction to fossil fuels and the growth economic model, we cannot survive as a civilization.  Humanity might survive but the collateral damage to biodiversity (every other species of animal and plant) means our grandchildren will wish they had another planet to emigrate to.

If you want my opinion on the Achilles Heel that will predicate our downfall — it is agriculture. When the systems collapse we cannot feed ourselves, and it is starting to happen. Sustainable crop yields are in decline. By the way, I am a qualified agricultural scientist — if that means anything in this dumbed down world where opinions rather than testable arguments hold sway — in both politics and media.


Greg Canavan+
For Markets and Money

Greg Canavan

Greg Canavan is a Contributing Editor at Markets & Money and Head of Research at Port Phillip Publishing.

He advocates a counter-intuitive investment philosophy based on the old adage that ‘ignorance is bliss’.

Greg says that investing in the ‘Information Age’ means you now have all the information you need. But is it really useful? Much of it is noise, and serves to confuse rather than inform investors.

Greg Canavan

Latest posts by Greg Canavan (see all)

Leave a Reply

3 Comments on "What Do You Really Think of Climate Change?"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Abel Adamski

Getting to be too late to slow down/minimise what is coming as a consequence of the refusal to do our part.
The legends/prophesies indicate the geoengineering we try in desperation will be a disaster for all life
Many scientists considering the options are petrified at the possible consequences, things always go wrong
Enjoy the consequences

slewie the pi-rat

here is where the money is going (& the sociologists are headed) [IPCC}:—>
they are now stating their pre-defined guesses as probabilities of “scientific” certainty.
or something.

did you know that if you have enough sociologists observing you, they can reach a consensus on what you are feeling, with 78% certainty, 79% of the time?
i most sincerely hope that none of the Oz TDR participants have gotten herpes from the Climate Justice activists…

slewie the pi-rat
Lima, Peru is the next “climate summit”: December, 2014; sponsored by UN Framework for Climate Change (UNFCC). Tony Abbot and the Aussies are being pilloried [a little] for not having a “credible climate policy in Australia”. especially now that there is a [somewhat imaginary?] [legitimate?] push for action, as nations will be working “at the ministerial level” for a draft agreement to be presented to some group of “deciders” [themselves?] in Paris, Sept., 2015. http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=315459549 “Australia reputation as a leader on fighting climate change tarnished ahead of Lima summit” after the “climate scientists” finish bullying the weak and faithless nations… Read more »
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@marketsandmoney.com.au