Scepticism Rises

The following is from Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Courier Mail website:

Scepticism rises

93 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink    Andrew Bolt Blog

Andrew Bolt    Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 02:25pm

gallop-poll

 

No wonder:

temp-change-chart

Meanwhile, the ABC’s Lateline confuses predictions with observations:

LISA MILLAR, PRESENTER: Alarming new research suggests sea levels may be rising a lot faster than was previously thought.

Not true:

sea-level-chart

Advertisements

Seriously worser

 This one from American Thinker caught my eye –  

Global Warming: Seriously Worse than Worse

Larrey Anderson

An IPCC spokesman has now made it clear: Global warming is seriously worse than everything else anywhere and always that ever was bad. Worser than that.

Chris Field is the IPCC panel member. Reuters quotes Field as saying, “The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously.”

Seriously. Fields said, “the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious” than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report called “Climate Change 2007.” Seriously … this time it is worse than serious.

At least this worse than serious time, the IPCC is not blaming it on my non-florescent light bulbs. Reuters states :

The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday.

Well maybe. There is no doubt about which countries can’t keep their carbon emissions in their pockets. And it ain’t the West. So, sure, China and India are worse than serious polluters.

But Field couldn’t leave it at that. He just had to do it. He had to throw in the doomsday sound bite. Here it comes:

“There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years,” Field, of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in a statement.

Field claims that global warming will cause huge wildfires in the tropical rain forests and will also melt the permafrost in the arctic. (That’s where all of that carbon dioxide is going to come from — er … it comes after the carbon dioxide from China and India, I guess. So man made global warming is causing non-made made global warming. This is worse than worser than serious.)

Now a first year high school chemistry student can tell you that fire burns because of, say it together class, oxygen, not carbon dioxide. Most scientists know that what this planet does not need is more oxygen in the atmosphere. A 5% richer oxygen mix in the air — and wild fires would burn and burn and never stop.  But carbon dioxide causes fires? Not on this planet.

And the permafrost is going to melt? Not unless the planet gets much warmer than even the most dire IPCC predicti…. Sorry. I misspoke. This new predication is the direst IPCC prediction.

Are you starting to see the pattern?  The less evidence that is found for man made global warming … the worse the predications about the outcome of global warming.

Remember the movie “Dumb and Dumber?” Al Gore and the global warming crowd need to produce a new movie: “Worse and Worser.” Seriously.

 Hmmm, reminds me of something I read as a child….. Seriouser and seriouser?  No, that’s right, curiouser and curiouser.

American Thinker has a heap of writers contributing seriously interesting articles.

James Lovelock wants to save the world by burying charcoal

New Scientist published an interview with Dr James Lovelock titled One last chance to save mankindon 23 January 2009. James Lovelock is the originator of the Gaia Theory. This theory has evolved over time and gaiatheory.org describes the theory as:

 The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability. In a phrase, “life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival.”

Here are a few excerpts from the interview with James Lovelock. It is interesting that James Lovelock has a rather fatalistic view on global warming. He does, however, propose one action which has a chance of “saving the world”.

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the “green” stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It’s absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt – that’s an awful lot of countryside.

And later …

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste – which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering – into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won’t do it.

But still he is optomistic ….

Do you think we will survive?

I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It’s happening again.

OK, so he is a global warming alarmist. I also think it safe to say he is not a creationist.

What alarms me is the extremes to which global warming alarmists propose we go in order to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Let’s think through the charcoal burying idea.

The idea is to lock the carbon into charcoal, and prevent microbes from consuming dead leaves etc and exhaling CO2 as a bi-product. So, we should starve off a few billion microbes, close to the bottom of the food chain, to replace the fossil fuels we burn with charcoal which we then bury?

Just how much biological waste do they propose turning into charcoal? What will the effect on the food chain be? What about soil quality and fertility?

There must be a better answer than this.

Oxygen Causes Greenhouse Gases!

If greenhouse gases are causing global warming, then we need to eliminate oxygen to rid our planet of greenhouse gases.

Look at the components of the major greenhouse gases –

  • water vapour – H2O
  • carbon dioxide – CO2
  • methane – CH4
  • nitrous oxide – N2O
  • ozone – O3
  • CFC’s – various combinations of carbon, flourine and chlorine

Four of the major GHG’s include oxygen! Our atmosphere now has about 21% oxygen – oxygen molecules just floating around waiting to form into one of these greenhouse gases!

Oxygen is also responsible for devastating bush fires around the globe every year – fires need oxygen.

So where is all of this terrible oxygen coming from? Plants! That grass, the flowers, shrubs and trees you planted around your home because they “look nice” are actually poisoning our atmosphere with oxygen!

Scientists have discovered that plants create oxygen through a complex process called photosynthesis. Plants absorb sunlight (that’s right – plants are even stealing our light source!) through chlorophyll (the stuff that makes them look green) and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, keep the carbon to themselves and transpire oxygen and water vapour – the two most populous greenhouse gases!

This is a world wide emergency! What can be done about all of this oxygen!

What’s worse, scientists have discovered that growing plants create more oxygen than unhealthy plants, and computer models show that these plants will continue to grow at more than 10% a year unless we do something about this!

Firstly, we need to stop more oxygen being added to the atmosphere. We need to rid the planet of all of these plants. That won’t be easy, especially as scientists have discovered plants called algae live in our oceans, seas and rivers.

Secondly, we need to remove all oxygen from the atmosphere somehow and bury it underground. This will require very complex new science, so governments around the world will need to dedicate billions of dollars to research to study the effects of oxygen and discover how to safely remove it from our atmosphere.

What was that? People need to breath oxygen? We can’t have that! What a terrible addiction! In that case we also need every government to prepare a National Adaptation Program Assessment to show how they will assist their people to wean themselves off this silly addiction and lodge it with the United Nations.

In fact, with such a looming catastrophe of global proportions, the UN had better set up a new coordinating body. I suggest IPOD – Intergovernmental Panel for Oxygen Destruction. They will need to have frequent meetings at different places all around the globe to demonstrate their commitment to this serious problem. Meetings will probably be held in forests, surrounded by the cause of this problem, to remind people of the purpose of the cause.

What do you mean, don’t be ridiculous? Are you denying that oxygen forms part of most greenhouse gases and that the atmosphere is 21% oxygen? Are you doubting years of scientific research which has proven that photosynthesis is the main cause of this oxygen?  

Spread the word and share your ideas on how to save the world from oxygen!

Business is scared and so am I!

Another snippet from the Channel Nine News website –

As job losses mount because of the deteriorating world economy, opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb has again called for emissions trading to be delayed until 2012.

“If the government is not mugged by reality, certainly the rest of Australia is,” Mr Robb said.

He said he had met with 51 companies recently and there was a “sense of fear” about the economic crisis. The last thing they needed was to grapple with emissions trading, Mr Robb said.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said the design of the emissions trading scheme should be delayed until the outcome of UN climate negotiations late next year.

The Government then countered with ……

But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he had always expected criticism for taking action on climate change.
“We’ll be attacked on the hard right by various businesses for going too far,” he said.
“You’re going to have people out there like the Liberal Party on the far right saying don’t do anything at all.”

PM Rudd’s statement loses credibility just by calling the Aussie Liberals “far right”. Of course you are going to be criticised PM Rudd! Didn’t you read your job description before you entered politics? Australia is one of the world’s few true democracies, and people love to exercise their freedom of expression (within socially acceptable boundaries).

For the reader, I am not affiliated with any political party. I once was and have learned my lesson – reality and politics don’t mix.

Back to the news item….

How is killing jobs and putting the ordinary people in the developed world into poverty going to help? (People in the under developed world won’t get poorer – they’ll just die – sometimes it is not possible to get poorer.) Don’t tell me you expect a tax to reduce carbon emissions? The rich will get richer, albeit more slowly, and the ordinary and the poor will get poorer. But carbon will keep pumping into the atmosphere.

What makes PM Rudd and his career focused advisers think that this will help stop the climate changing? Do they have a policy on stopping the tide from coming in and out?

Recent news is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still rising, but temperatures are moderating. The problem with letting politicians make the climate decisions is that they are focused on winning the next election in three or four years, and not in long term phenomena, like the climate. When we are too poor (because we squandered resources on chasing a vote winner) to adjust to whatever climate the earth’s orbit and other physical realities throw at us, PM Rudd will either be retired and suffering along with his grandchildren, or no longer on this Earth.

Will someone PLEASE take off the short term blinkers and look at a hugely long term picture?