Slipshod Climate Change
by Anthony Bright-Paul
Can you imagine a word, or is it a phrase, or shall I say ‘concept’ as slipshod as ‘climatechange’? Yet we have Ministers of Climate Change, and Members of Parliament sit on Committees of climatechange. Can you imagine anything more ludicrous?
| [ad name=”Adsense160x600_orange”] |
If you have change, then it must be change from something. There must be an established norm. But is there any such thing? Curiously enough there is. The Warsaw Conference of the International Meteorological Organisation in1935 agreed on a 30-year period from 1900 to 1930 to be the climate normal ( Climate: The Counter Consensus by Professor Robert M.Carter) . Since I was born in 1929, and in spite of my undoubted psychic powers (I do jest of course!) I am unable to see back before I was born, and thus unable to comprehend this climate norm. This norm was later supplanted by another norm, 1930 to 1960, and then 1960 to 1990. However since time is forever moving, an undoubted and experiential fact, and moreover a Law of Physics, and since weather and therefore climate are in a constant state of flux, I defy anyone of reasonable intellectual powers to establish for me or for anyone else just what is the Climate Normal for the whole of this Planet. I do not wish to be unkind, but those who imagine that they are, or could be, fighting against climate change, are simply deluded. Climates are always changing and there is absolutely nothing that Princes, Archbishops, Prime Ministers or Members of any Parliament whatever over the Globe, can do about it. Unfortunately the spreaders of doom have caught up in their web a lot of well-meaning but gullible people. The biggest lie that has been perpetrated, the biggest hoax that has ever been attempted, is the idea that emissions of Carbon Dioxide are causing Global Warming, and that man has somehow interfered with, and effected climate changes. |
Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas that is wholly beneficial for humankind and for the growth of everything Green!
I am going to quote here a letter recently published in the Daily Mail, with the permission of the said Biologist of 30 years experience:
IN PRAISE OF CARBON DIOXIDE
I am a biologist with more than 30 years experience working in nature conservation.
I object to the demonising of carbon dioxide, as it is an essential component of our atmosphere, without which there would be no life as we know it on our planet.
It is essential to plant growth, and at higher levels, plants grow bigger and stronger, are more resistant to disease and the damaging effects of pollution, and are more drought tolerant.
The science is well established. At less than 200ppm (parts per million) there is no photosynthesis at all. Above this figure, photosynthesis increases in line with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels up to 1000ppm, which is the optimum. At the present level of about 390ppm, we are comfortably above the minimum, but well below the optimum.
For those who wish to check this out, a book has recently been published called ‘The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment’ by Isdo & Isdo. Each of the 55 examples given is backed by many references to peer reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals.
Contrary to popular sentiment, more CO2, not less, makes for a greener world. –M. Lennard BSc FLS
The Sceptics protest again and again that Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. But the alarmist tricksters will ask, ‘Is Carbon Dioxide not a Greenhouse Gas?’ and when the answer is ‘Yes’ they clap their hands. They imagine that this is a concession, that Greenhouse Gases in some extraordinary way cause warming. But the truth is otherwise. Greenhouse gases, most notably Water Vapour, merely delay the exit of heat from this earth and that is all. They don’t make the world hotter! They do not reflect heat from the top of the Troposphere or anything fanciful like that. There is no hotspot in the sky. The whole idea of human created global warming is a myth created by those who are coining it in various disreputable ways. So many fingers are in the pie that this immense falsehood is difficult to displace.
The stupid thing is that there are real pollutants, like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides, which are produced from the burning of fossil fuels. Why then are they not demonised? The answer is simple – they are not what is called Greenhouse Gases – they do not delay the exit of heat.
But they are pollutants, and with modern day methods of coal combustion in Power Stations, these pollutants can be scrubbed. The most efficient combustion produces less smoke, that is from smokeless fuel, and slightly more Carbon Dioxide – which is to the good. All those pictures of Power Stations belching smoke are beloved by the snake-oil merchants, whose stock-in-trade is deception of the masses. And to their shame, there is even a picture like that on the website of the Meteorological Office.
What is amazing is that even today I see that a whole lot of people still ‘believe in’ global warming, when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any such thing. Why, it has not even been properly defined as yet!
One does not have to be a scientist to know that everything that is hot is always cooling naturally. Every ordinary person know that if their wife is serving up a hot dinner and the phone rings from a member of family, the instant reaction is to say ‘May I call you back in 20 minutes?’ Why, do that? For the very simple reason that every person knows, without any scientific knowledge whatsoever, that a hot dinner will cool very rapidly, and become disagreeable, if not inedible. Everybody knows that a enormous amount of energy has to be applied to make a hot dinner. Water has to be boiled for the vegetables, the meat may have to be grilled, and all of this requires a lot of energy over a period of time, let alone the energy of the cook herself.
I do not even have to know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to know that heat by itself always flows from hot to cold and never vice versa. Ordinary, unscientific people know this law from daily observation. Everybody knows that in order to produce heat, energy in one form or another is needed. If you run your car for even a few miles the engine will get hot. Leave it standing and it will cool by itself. Nothing whatsoever in this whole wide world gets hotter and hotter by itself.
Every day, as the sun rises, the atmosphere and the seas warm up, and every evening as the sun goes down so does the atmosphere cool, and likewise the waters of the oceans and lakes. The atmosphere cools rapidly while water cools more slowly – different thermal capacity. Everybody knows this simple fact as well, as boiled water in a kettle will retain its heat for half an hour or more.
So the Globe is constantly warming and cooling according to the seasons as the sun rises and sets. The Greenhouse gases do no more than delay the exit of heat. This is so obvious that it is utterly amazing that anyone can be taken in by all the Global Warming and Climate Change nonsense.
But only yesterday there was an article in the Mail by a one-time Green zealot, Mark Lynas.
Atomic energy, while far from perfect, is an essential option to combat two looming problems: climate change, caused by man-made carbon emissions, and a growing ‘energy gap’ by which Britain generates far less electricity than it needs, sending fuel bills soaring.
So this Mark Lynas has come round to Atomic Energy, but he still repeats the mantra, ‘climate change, caused by man-made carbon emissions.’ He is clearly a man of some intelligence. Just how did he come to a conclusion that climate change is caused by man-made carbon emissions?
It is so puerile a conclusion. He must know that Carbon is an element of the Periodic Table, and that Carbon can no more emit anything than can gold or iron. Like all the so-called Greens he seems not to understand the difference between Carbon Dioxide, a gas, and Carbon, an element. But he is not alone – even our Minister, Chris Huhne, fails to make this distinction.
Now a gas can be emitted, and, as has been shown by my honourable friend the Biologist whom I have never met, Carbon Dioxide is a colourless, transparent gas, of which we are greatly in need in order to make the world green! The idea that Carbon Dioxide emissions cause changes in Climate is just plain nonsense, only harboured by those who have been brainwashed by repeated suggestions.
Why then, when it is clearly utter nonsense, has the idea persisted? Why are so many so-called scientists actually trying to prove that Global Warming is caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions, and that it is actually happening? When one looks into it one finds that the infamous IPCC has a remit to find just that connection between CO2 and Global Warming. So we are supplied with all sorts of figures to try to prove that the Globe is hotting up and that the icecaps will melt and so on and so forth. This nonsense has been going on for 20 or more years now, and what have we had? A succession of the coldest and most severe winters. Have the summers been exceptionally hot? I have not noticed –have you?
As far as the UK is concerned we have had a very normal summer – about two and a half days, when it was pleasantly warm, before we were drenched in a normal thunderstorm with attendant lightning. That is simply par for the course! That is just normal for the UK. Why, Bob Hope made a famous joke about falling asleep in a deck chair and missing the English summer.
The weather as always is variable, as is the climate. So now those scientists solemnly aver that these variations are beyond the norm, and are therefore man-made! Pull the other one. Who can believe this alarmist nonsense any more?
And what is the result of all this? Amidst growing protests all over England, Scotland and Wales, the land is being despoiled by hideous Wind Turbines. The protestors complain of the noise, or that they are unsightly, or that they kill birds and bats, or that they upset marine life. But they overlook too often the main defect, which is that they do not work! They do not, and never can, produce Electricity on demand. They are totally usesless for generating electrical power. They have to be backed up by other kinds of normal Power Stations, including Coal and Gas.
So whole nations are being lead a dance by ignorant politicians, who will not take independent advice, but rely upon their soothsayers, their medicine men. And can you blame them? If they change tack now, they will have egg all over their faces. Millions of £s and millions of $s have been spent chasing an illusion, while at the same time impoverishing great industrial countries, like the the UK and USA and Australia.
Who will have the courage to say, ‘We were mistaken! Weather and Climate are driven by forces of Nature, which we as yet dimly understand’?
To try to control Nature by controlling the emissions of Carbon Dioxide is an exercise in utter fatuity. Especially when it is admitted by the IPCC itself that 97% of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is from Natural sources,. Yet these same witch doctors solemnly declare that CO2 is a pollutant! What next? Will they declare that the very air we breathe is a pollutant. You never know.
So much money is tied up in this scam. No wonder so many wriggle and scream, and even threaten murder! And yet within a few years it will all be a matter of history, and our children will wonder how an entire generation was hoodwinked with this Global Warming Swindle.
May Galileo and Copernicus look down and bless these words!
Anthony Bright-Paul
July the 5th 2011
PS 1
Australia Considers Killing Camels to Tackle Climate Change
Kill a camel to stop pollution? That’s what Australia is considering.
The Land Down Under is considering killing feral camels to help tackle climate change, according to a report by news service AFP. The suggestion came in a paper from the country’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. A camel produces methane equivalent to one ton of of carbon dioxide a year, making the animal one of the country’s biggest greenhouse gasses emitters, it noted.
A commercial company, Northwest Carbon, has proposed culling more than one million camels in the Australian Outback to eliminate that gas emissions, according to AFP. In the proposed plan, the company would shoot the camels from a helicopter or round them up and send them to a slaughterhouse.
“We’re a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges — this is just a classic example,” Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press. Australia’s government is considering the idea and legislation for the “Carbon Farming Initiative” will go before the country’s parliament next week.
PS 2
EU carbon tax to hike air travel costs
Once a new European Union (EU) carbon tax is levied on Chinese airlines, 743 million yuan will be added to the costs of flights from China to Europe and likely mean a fare increase of 300 yuan for each economy flight passenger, the Shanghai Morning Post reported. The European Commission’s carbon tax plan will only exempt airplanes with carbon dioxide emissions that add up to less than 10,000 tons. A Boeing 777 plane from Shanghai to London, traveling 9,233 kilometers, will emit 222 tons of carbon dioxide. If the airliner has three flights to Europe each week, the exemption quota will be used up within seven weeks. The China Air Transport Association, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Air China are preparing to challenge the EU in court over the new carbon tax.
Source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-04/02/content_12269431.htm
Air fares ‘to double’ as Europe votes for green tax
AIR passengers will be charged up to £40 extra for a return ticket within Europe to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday.
MEPs voted in favour of the “immediate introduction” of a tax on jet fuel for flights within the 25 member states of the EU. The charge would double the cost of millions of budget airline flights. They also accepted a recommendation for a special emissions trading scheme for the aviation industry, which would see airlines buying permits to cover their output of carbon dioxide.
Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases, and flights within Europe are on course to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. British Airways and other European airlines have been lobbying for a more lenient scheme that would compensate for only a small portion of their emissions and cost the average passenger less than £1.50 per flight. But the parliament rejected BA’s argument that the impact of aviation on the environment was not sufficiently understood and, therefore, the scheme should be limited.
MEPs voted by 439 to 74 to adopt proposals drafted by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MEP for southeast England. There were 102 abstentions. The main proposal was for airlines to be forced to buy emissions permits within a separate trading scheme dedicated to aviation, with a specific cap on the amount of CO2. BA had wanted to be allowed virtually unlimited growth by being able to buy cheap surplus permits from other industries.
The parliament also dismissed BA’s proposal for airlines to be allocated free permits to cover their existing level of emissions. BA wanted the scheme to focus on additional flights.
The MEPs said that the scheme should cover all flights arriving at or departing from EU airports rather than just intra-EU flights, as had been proposed by BA. But the scheme is likely to be limited to flights within Europe in the early years to avoid legal challenges from the United States and other countries. MEPs also accepted the proposal for a separate environmental tax to cover the impact of nitrogen oxides and condensation trails emitted by aircraft.
When emitted at altitude, these emissions trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. The parliament accepted that aviation’s total contribution to global warming was two to four times greater than the impact of CO2 alone, and that airlines should be forced to pay for this.
The GreenSkies Alliance, a coalition of environmental groups that opposes the growth of aviation, said passengers would have to pay up to £20 per flight, or £40 return, to cover the cost of purchasing just the CO2 permits for flights within Europe. A jet fuel tax and an environmental tax would push ticket prices up even further but the costs are harder to quantify.
Jeff Gazzard, of the alliance, said: “The huge European Parliament majority shows that MEPs overwhelmingly recognise that air transport’s greenhouse gas emissions are out of control and urgent action to control them is long overdue.”
The parliament’s vote will strongly influence legislation being drafted by the European Commission and due to be debated later this year. The emissions trading scheme is due to be introduced in 2008 but commission officials admit it could be delayed until 2010.
Andrew Sentance, BA’s head of environmental affairs, admitted that aviation could account for almost half of Britain’s total CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with 6 per cent today. Even assuming a fast introduction of fuel-efficient technology and a reduction in the rate of growth of flights, aviation’s share of total emissions would still triple. He said that imposing a cap on aviation emissions would “deny society the right to make choices” about how to tackle climate change. He said society might prefer to continue to allow flights to grow but to reduce emissions elsewhere to compensate, such as in power generation or road transport.
Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article683119.ece