The quasi-religious belief that the planet is hurtling towards destruction and it's all our fault has taken a few knocks lately, as more and more proper scientists have called into question the alarmist claims and predictions. One of the alarmists' best-used mantras is to demonise the evil “carbon”, which they deem to be a poison inimical to life.
The reality is, of course, that we are all made mainly from carbon, and it doesn't seem to have done us much harm so far. We also breathe in carbon mixed with oxygen in the form of the poison gas “carbon dioxide”, and here we all are, respiring happily away. We breathe OUT even more of it, we imagine. And the plants which cover our planet and on which we depend for food, clothing, warmth, construction materials and almost everything else, are completely dependent on this poison gas. Which is very silly of them. Why won't they be told?
Our governments and other profit-making national and international organisations have spent the last ten years trying to persuade us to get behind their efforts to “cut carbon”, but so far with little success. It's obviously very foolish of us. You'd think we'd be eager to breathe less, move about less, keep less warm and generally do fewer of the things that most organisms are designed to do.
It's stupid, of course, but we seem to be have a deeply-ingrained reluctance to listen to scientific bullshit forced down our throats by people who are not, on the whole, real scientists but environmentalists who design future worlds in their computers and pretend they're real. No, silly old us, we keep on believing blokes with degrees, and experimental experience, and a track record in proper science. Men like Harrison Schmitt who is a professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, walked on the moon in 1972 as an Apollo 17 astronaut, and still found time to be a U.S. senator. Or Bill Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Here are a few choice little snippets from Schmitt and Happer, borrowed from the excellent Hockey Schtick website ...
The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science
In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.
The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been — and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.
Using energy from sunlight — together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth — plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates (since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants). C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.
At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.
Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.
That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.
The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.
So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.
Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.
Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamouring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.
We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.
In case that was a bit TOO scientific for you, here's a slightly less erudite comment on Global Warming from George Carlin, the American stand-up comedian, social critic, satirist and author who died in 2008 ...
Are these f*cking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the f*cking planet? I'm getting tired of that sh*t ... I'm tired of f*cking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths.
The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles ... hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages ... and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?
Meanwhile, Steven Goddard at the Real Science website reports ...
The extent of summer sea ice during the 19th century, insofar as it is shown in patterns of navigability inferred from ship tracks, the direct observations of explorers, and a number of native accounts, is remarkably similar to present ice climatology. A chart of northern Canada shows the routes followed by discovery expeditions and their wintering locations between 1818 and 1859, and also displays the frequency that sea ice has occurred during the recent 30-year reference period 1971–2000.
It is perhaps surprising that most of the Northwest Passage was navigated during the 19th century, with expedition ships coming within 150 km of completing the passage on a number of occasions. Most significant is that even in years that were recognized as unfavourable at the time, ships were still able to reach locations that would be consistent with the worst ice conditions that have occurred during the modern reference period. Of 33 expedition or supply ships bound for the western part of Lancaster Sound between 1819 and 1859, only two failed due to unfavourable ice conditions.
Back in March the Daily Mail carried an article by David Rose that expressed what a lot us must be thinking ...
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed. The graph on this page (can't reproduce it here, sorry - GOS) blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.
Steadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The estimates – given with 75 per cent and 95 per cent certainty – suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.
But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.
The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
On ClimateGate.com John O'Sullivan commented that ...
The world is learning fast that climate pseudo-science is fraught with fraud. The best way to go to the heart of any moneymaking scam is to follow the money. Let’s go on a journey from the toilet of the United Nations to the BBC’s top floor. The BBC extorts an annual compulsory license fee of £142.50 per household via government legislation for the privilege of owning a television. The BBC Pension Trust is worth about £8 billion while its mainstream operations are struggling to reverse an estimated £2 billion deficit as reported on last weekend by James Delingpole of the ‘Telegraph.’
The BBC’s handsome pension pot is invested in the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) alongside another 50 plus member funds. The total assets of this consortium is around 4 trillion (Euros), that in turn are invested in a larger consortium known as ‘UNEP FI’ worth about $15 trillion (US).
UNEP FI is fast becoming seriously embarrassed with its strong ties to the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that lurches from one climate data fraud scandal to another. Nonetheless, the UNEP FI puts on a smug face and gleefully describes itself as, “a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. Over 180 institutions, including banks, insurers and fund managers, work with UNEP to understand the impacts of environmental and social considerations on financial performance.”
The UNEP FI Insurance Working Group boasts of its “ground-breaking report” on its website that I well recommend reading. These swindlers advise that there is a “complex relationship” between environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, core insurance operations, and the insurance industry. Yes, and it has become so much more complex since climate scientists destroyed their fudged data and refused to obey lawful freedom of information requests for over seven years.
Despite the string of calamities that have befallen the UN since the Climategate scandal first broke last November, the UNEP FI consortium is feverishly demanding that governments impose higher fuel duties and caps on carbon emissions that will encourage scarcity and demand. Thus this profit-chasing unholy alliance of conspirators will still be able to cream off some of the loot for their green pension scams. The losers in the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time are western taxpayers and Third World poor who will likely suffer starvation and disease due to the increased costs of food and essential medicines.
The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
Yes, you did read that correctly: “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe…”
The BBC is in the chair of this carbon trading driven investment scheme. Now you know why the BBC’s thought police have been censoring climate skeptics shamelessly for years.
UKIP’s Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom was vilified by the warmist press for refusing to back down from his attack on the BBC in the UK’s fine Daily Telegraph, in which he said: “The BBC has blocked skeptics of climate change for four years now, no debate is allowed on the BBC. It is biased reporting and it is censorship.”
Speaking to Left Foot Forward, Mr Bloom continued: “I absolutely stand by what I said. This is one of the most important subjects since the war. The whole thing has been a complete farce and a cover-up. Name me one instance of an informed debate on the subject?”
But Godfrey Bloom is now being entirely vindicated as we see that the BBC has been shamelessly plugging its own profiteering agenda and ignoring any dissent even when it involves news stories of great interest to its viewers and listeners. And all for the so-greater good of that ‘Low-Carbon Economy.’
The statement reads: “it is imperative that efforts advance this year to negotiate and conclude a legally binding agreement with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.”
The BBC’s Peter Dunscombe, as Chair of the IIGCC, endorses (he may have even written) in his pension trust’s policy statements that: “Without government actions, however, private-sector investment will not reach the scale required to address climate change effectively.”
You got that? Climate change has to be addressed “effectively,” i.e. effective for his pension pot. With a shameful hidden agenda like that its no wonder viewers are abandoning television and coming to the internet for impartial news reporting.
This self-serving hypocrite baloney goes further: “….we remain firmly convinced that climate change presents both material risks and significant opportunities for investment portfolios…”
The ‘risks” it seems are wholly upon gullible taxpayers, the incentives for BBC newsreaders, environment correspondents, journalists, planners, schedulers, documentary program makers, etc. is enormous. No wonder the BBC produces the best environmental television in the world – a BBC employee would think: ‘investment portfolios!’
For European readers would like to know more about the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) we suggest you contact Stephanie Pfeifer at email@example.com Web: www.iigcc.org
Those British organisations tied into IIGCC who may have a conflict of interest when they communicate with you include the following:
Baptist Union of Great Britain
Bedfordshire Pension Fund
BT Pension Scheme
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
Corporation of London Pension Fund
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Kent County Council
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
London Borough of Islington Pension Fund
London Borough of Newham Pension Fund
London Pensions Fund Authority
Merseyside Pension Fund
Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth
Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford
South Yorkshire Pensions Authority
The Church Commissioners for England
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth
United Reform Church
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund
Now hypothetically, what would happen to the BBC pension pot if the whole Anthropogenic Climate Change scam goes tits up? I'll bet a quid to a pound of dog turd that it'll be "too big to fail" and it'll get bailed out from "Government Funds", which are really our money.
Now back to David Rose, writing again in our favourite newspaper (not) ...
Councils across the UK are spending millions and employing hundreds of ‘low carbon’ officers to fight global warming – which now appears not to pose an imminent threat – at the same time as making sweeping cuts to children’s services, the arts and the elderly.
The councils have increased their spending on salaries of climate change staff by 34 per cent since the 2008 crash, almost three times the rate of inflation, while grants from central government were slashed by 12 per cent.
Our investigation comes from data sought under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act. It shows that green salaries totalled £8.7 million in 2011 to 2012 at 65 councils, representing 17 million people – about one third of all councils. This sum does NOT include the cost of publicity materials urging people to cut their carbon footprints.
Spending on green salaries rose by 137 per cent in Stoke. In 2010, the council spent £137,000 on solar panels for its civic centre roof. It is now set to close it and build a new centre for more than £50m.
The highest-spending councils face deep cuts to core provisions. In Glasgow, where the green jobs spend of £390,000 is up 43 per cent on 2008 to 2009, the council is to cut £54 million from schools, social services and help for the disabled. In Birmingham, green salaries of £338,000 have risen 62 per cent, but £102 million is to be axed and 1,000 jobs lost. In Bradford (where green salaries are up from zero to £289,000), the council has issued a 25-page booklet claiming locals face an influx of foreign migrants displaced by sea level rises and drought.
And the MPs and peers who benefit from green causes ...
Twenty MPs and peers who help shape ‘green’ legislation have personal interests in campaign groups and firms which stand to benefit from such laws. The disclosure comes as MPs prepare for a final debate on the Energy Bill, which seeks to bring in vast subsidies for wind farms and is set to cost taxpayers and consumers £110 billion.
The two MPs who declared the biggest personal benefits are Tim Yeo, the Tory chairman of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, and his Labour Deputy, Barry Gardiner. They are also behind a radical amendment to the Bill that would impose a target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by 90 per cent by 2030. Many observers believe this goal would lead to frequent power cuts. It would also shut off all investment in new, clean gas-fired power stations and fracking for natural gas in the countryside.
Here are the most high-profile of the MPs and peers benefiting from the green cause:
Tim Yeo, Tory chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, co-sponsor of Energy Bill amendment to impose 90 per cent emission reduction from power generation by 2030. Director of three renewable energy and transport firms which last year paid him £135,970 – double his MP’s salary.
Barry Gardiner: Senior Labour member of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, co-sponsor of Energy Bill. Benefits: accepted travel and hospitality worth £29,432 from Globe, an international group that campaigns for tough climate-change laws worldwide.
Barry Sheerman: Labour Associate of Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group. Benefits: Paid £5,000 for his services by Veolia Environmental Services, part of a multinational with renewable energy interests.
Graham Stuart: Member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Globe. Benefits: Accepted travel worth £5,226 from Globe.
Laura Sandys: Parliamentary Private Secretary to Greg Barker, Minister for Energy and Climate Change. Benefits: Accepted travel worth £3,692 from Globe – which campaigns for legislation in the field for which Barker is responsible.
(Members of the Lords do not have to disclose the monetary value of their interests)
Lord Deben: Chairman of Committee on Climate Change, an influential official government advisory body on energy policy, carbon emissions and targets. Interests: Chairman of Sancroft, environmental lobbying company of which two of his children are directors. Chairman of Veolia Water UK PLC, which connects wind farms to national grid. Chairman of Globe.
Baroness Maddock: Lib Dem Associate of Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group. Personal interest: President of Micro Power Council, a lobby group run by small energy firms which campaigns for a ‘mass market for small-scale, low- and zero-carbon electricity and heat-generating technologies’.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: Member of All-Party Parliamentary Group for Globe. Interests: Director of Globe. Director of Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.
Lord MacLennan of Rogart: Member of EU subcommittee on agriculture, fisheries, environment and energy. Interests: Chairman of Firth Tidal Energy Ltd.
Lord Oxburgh: member of All-Party Parliamentary Group for Globe; led inquiry which cleared University of East Anglia climate scientists of wrongdoing after ‘Climategate’ emails leak. Interests: Professional advice given to Evo Electric Motors Ltd and Climate Change Capital Geothermal Engineering Ltd; director of Green Energy Options Ltd; President of Carbon Capture and Storage Association.
... and lastly, we really can't end a round-up of Global Warming news (yes, we know the alarmists and profiteers have started calling it “climate change” now, but we ain't fooled) without mentioning ... you've guessed it ... POLAR BEARS!
“Polar bear hunting and migration 'hit by warming climate'”, we were told in British newspapers recently. “Researchers from British Ecological Society find that shrinking sea ice is affecting polar bears' health and breeding success”.
Strangely, when you listen to the observations of people who actually live with polar bears, instead of a couple of doctorate students from some North of England poly who might have gone to Canada once, you get a slightly different story. This was from the Star of Toronto on 4th April last year ...
An aerial survey done in August by the Nunavut government, in response to pressure from Inuit, estimated the western Hudson Bay bear population at around 1,000. That’s about the same number of bears found in a more detailed study done in 2004. That study, which physically tagged the bears, predicted the number would decline to about 650 by 2011.
Last year’s survey found fewer cubs — about 50 — than in previous years, but officials say the new figures show the “doom-and-gloom” predictions of environmentalists about the demise of the polar bear have failed to come true.
“People have tried to use the polar bear as a bit of a poster child — it’s a beautiful animal and it grabs the attention of the public — to make people aware of the impact of climate change,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management.
“We are not observing these impacts right at this moment in time. And it is not a crisis situation as a lot of people would like the world to believe it is.”
Environmentalists have warned the bears are under serious threat as climate change melts the sea ice, giving the animals less time to bulk up on fatty seal meat. Canada is home to about two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, but environmental experts say climate change could make the Hudson Bay population extinct within a few decades.
Inuit hunters have insisted the population is healthy. They say they are seeing more polar bears and they aren’t as emaciated or in the poor condition scientists suggest.
Gissing said this latest survey shows the bears are doing well, despite being hunted, and it may be time to re-evaluate the restrictions placed on the polar bear harvest. “The population was continually harvested since 2004,” he said. “A lot of animals have been removed from that population ... so that should have resulted in a much steeper decline than the one that was predicted in 2004.”
And here's a picture of a polar bear, before they're all gone ...
... not bothered ...
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2013 The GOS