 |
|
|
tomorrow's challenge today Patron Madonna not for profit organisation, please support this site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Featured |
Global Warming, Fact or Fable |
Other |
|
|
Chaotic behaviour can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather. I cannot claim to be a scientist, let alone a climate scientist, but I am sceptical of the “accepted science” that man-made carbon dioxide is the root cause of global warming.
My scepticism started when a British judge examined Al Gore’s video and, after finding eight significant errors of fact, decided that there was no need to look further and found the government guilty of illegally distributing propaganda to schools when it sent them copies of the video. The much derided Lord Monckton found more than twenty errors. Then there was the Climategate affair and the IPCC errors and the subsequent whitewashes. It continued when governments, and organisations like Greenpeace, all jumped on what I regard as the bandwagon and started issuing strict instructions about the need to reduce carbon dioxide. We are spending billions of pounds on wasteful wind and wave energy and forcing electricity consumers to pay excessive energy costs to encourage rooftop generators. It lavishes subsidies on wind farms, which have been proved to be inefficient and have been denounced even by their original proposer, and are only now considering the same for nuclear power which we need for more efficient production of electricity and a 100% backup against wind failure. My final conviction came when I discovered that the atmosphere contains only 0.0388% carbon dioxide. It increased by only 0.0037 of a percentage point in the twenty years ending 2010, which was probably the highest period for carbon emissions. By my reckoning it would take 16,000 years to reach even 3%. Not believing that such a minute amount could cause the chaos we are warned about I have asked at least a dozen climate scientists and organisations (including the Royal Society) for factual proof. Only two replies were forthcoming. One was from a professor at Oxford University who referred me to a textbook on geophysics. The other reply came from the UK's Secretary of State for Climate Change. He sent me a link to a government document purporting to provide the proof I was seeking. It merely confirmed my view that the stated effect of carbon dioxide is the result of conjecture not fact. I have asked the UK's Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister to undertake an examination of my contention before spending further money. I did not receive a reply. Why is everybody so secretive? It can only be that there is no proof. In the 19th century a scientist, John Tyndall, discovered that carbon dioxide does retain heat. He used primitive equipment, which is still held by the Royal Society. I cannot see why a laboratory experiment could not be set up using today’s sophisticated equipment to show exactly how much it retains - after all they have managed to analyse the component parts of the atmosphere. There are many other elements in the atmosphere which contribute to global warming, including water vapour which has a volume one hundred times greater than carbon dioxide. Water vapour creates between 36% and 85% of Global warming depending on location and cloud cover. Are the climate scientists ignoring that because they cannot do anything about it, whereas they can enforce spurious anti-carbon measures to satisfy their theories? People who support the theory of man-made global warming are adept at giving only half the story or inaccurate facts. Greenpeace has claimed that each passenger on a long haul flight was responsible for the emission of ten tons of carbon dioxide; an Oxford professor produced a figure of three tons for a flight of 25,000 miles. Professor Jones, as director of the Climatic Research Unit produced a graph showing increases in global temperatures using the evidence of tree rings but completed the end of his graph with different data because he claimed that tree rings ceased to be accurate. Could it be, to my suspicious mind, that they did not show what was expected? They seem to have been valid for thousands of years past, why suddenly should that change? In any case why should one graph be formed from two different sets of data. If the tree rings were not sufficient the graph should have been abandoned, or stopped at the point when tree rings were no longer valid. I had an argument with somebody on the internet who claimed that wind power was cheaper than nuclear power. When I suggested that the subsidy via Renewable Obligation Certificates should be included in the costing he was adamant that that was not part of the cost. The Royal Academy of Engineering has reported that generation in descending order of cost is Offshore wind farms, Wave and Marine, Onshore wind farms, Coal, Nuclear and Gas. In conclusion I would refer to a damning statement by Professor John Beddington, the UK's government’s chief scientific advisor, that they had not been able to prove that global warming was caused by natural phenomena and therefore it must be carbon dioxide. He also said that the money we are spending now is like the insurance premiums we pay against the risk of fire, which was a nonsensical comparison for a scientist to make. All this seems to show that the theory is based on statistics and not science - temperatures are up, carbon dioxide is up therefore carbon dioxide must be the culprit. It is agreed that fossil fuels will eventually run out. They are already becoming more expensive to recover. But to rely totally on “green” energy is totally impractical. Householders are welcome to generate their own heat and electricity, but they should not be encouraged to charge their neighbours excessive charges courtesy of the government. |
How recycling mobile phones can benefit the environment How energy companies rip you off Climate change: a summary of the science by The Royal Society Bellamy, Climate Change not Man Made Combating climate change- China’s contribution to the expansion of Africa’s renewable energy sector The Climate Change Challenge for British Woodland Do Volcanoes cause climate change Disposable Nappies (diapers) - No Worse for the Environment Than Cloth Nappies Walking to the shops damages planet more than going by car
Causes of Climate Change slammed by 140 Scientists |
©
UK 8020 CIC - A Social Enterprise registered at Companies House as a Not for Profit Community Interest Company