Thursday 9 October 2014

    To understand the climate change scare just follow the money

    After a radio interview with Naomi Klein, a texter to the radio station said that ‘climate change’ is poppycock. The well-known anti-capitalist author was promoting her recently published book called ‘This changes everything’ mostly about the climate change scare.

    The talk show host answered the texter’s comment by saying that the vast majority of scientists agreed it was a big problem. He questioned how such a big conspiracy could exist if it were not true.

    Having studied this topic for years I know that the belief in catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change is still strong, despite the relative lack of evidence, irrelevant evidence and much evidence to the contrary. So why is this?

    As with many things consider the money flows.
    1. It is not in the interest of climate researchers to downplay the issue. No problem – less research funding. It makes it financially difficult for academics to downplay the risk even if that is what they believe. It could affect their funding or their colleagues’ funding. The number of actual climate scientists is relatively small. It could conceivably cost less to ‘buy’ this issue than a world cup in Qatar.
    2. Insurance is easier to sell if people accept increased risk – Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, is hosting the 9th Extreme Weather Conference in Hamburg this week. No climate change sceptics were invited.
    3. Windmills and other alternative energy technology can only survive with subsidies. People selling these technologies are among the issue’s strongest supporters.
    4. Anti-capitalist protesters want to make doing business more expensive.
    5. Governments can raise additional funding with carbon taxes.
    Climate change scare campaigners often accuse fossil fuel energy companies of funding ‘deniers’. However, the amount spent is small compared to amount spent by well-heeled supporters of the belief - George Soros and Richard Branson come to mind.

    In any case, some fossil fuel companies can cynically benefit from the scare. They sometimes receive carbon credits. It may make it easier to charge customers more because restrictions imposed to counter climate change can reduce supplies of fossil fuels and increase prices. Restrictions on fracking in Europe and the delay of the Keystone pipeline in North America are two examples.

    Fossil fuel companies know that despite all the huffing and puffing people will still need fossil fuels for energy. Also gas producers can use the climate change issue to target coal producers because their product contains relatively less carbon than coal.

    Campaigners against the scare are outnumbered and outfunded independent researchers and consumers. The supposedly convincing nature of the overwhelming evidence is never properly explained. The argument that the evidence is unconvincing is usually refuted in the same manner as by the radio host - stating that 97% of scientists agree without looking in detail at what they agree.

    A quick look at history will show that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong about issues before – the position of Earth in the universe and others. Scientists are people like everyone else and the majority will put their own self-interest ahead of anything else.


    The truth will eventually become apparent and irrefutable. Even before that China, India and even Germany will burn more carbon because it is good for their economies. And in the meantime many people will become richer by exaggerating the problem – from research funding and by selling books, windmills and insurance.

    Thursday 2 October 2014

    To save water turn off the water in the shower


    Recently a singer was criticised for wasting water while being being filmed in a video with the tap running. But this is nothing compared to the amount of water wasted if people leave a shower running for the whole time. I posted on this issue last year before it was so topical in my post Shower like a submariner
    To save water when showering turn off water after wetting yourself while lathering. This simple idea  will save water and energy.
    A simple idea is to shower like a submariner. We are all told we should shower instead of taking of a bath to save water. This saves some water. But occasionally when I have stayed in a hotel with a shower in a bath I have put in the stopper to see how much water I used. Often my shower will more than half fill the bath. There is a water saving for showering relative to filling the bath but it is not absolutely massive.

    But when showering on a submarine or other naval vessels you have to conserve water. Fresh water is scarce on any sea vessel especially submarines. On ‘Das Boot’ and other WWII submarines there were no showers and sailors shared bunks sleeping in 3 shifts, but modern nuclear submarines are not so cramped. But they can be underwater for weeks on end without surfacing so they do need to conserve fresh water.
    So how do they shower? Turn on the water and wet their bodies. Turn off the water and shampoo and lather up. Turn on the shower again to rinse and that’s it. There is a major water saving because the water is not left running while lathering. There is the added benefit that half the soap isn’t rinsed away before it has a chance to soak in properly.
    I have started to use a variation of this technique and am saving lots of water, and more importantly, the energy used to heat it. In high summer my solar panels produce enough hot water to waste but now after the autumnal equinox, I have to supplement the solar energy with expensive oil water heating. I wet myself, turn off the water, shampoo and lather, rinse my hair and face only, turn off the water, add conditioner to my hair and rub it in, turn on the water slowly to rinse my face and off again, rub shaving oil on my face, turn on the water slowly to rinse again and shave. Finally, I turn up the water full blast and rinse the conditioner from my hair and the soap from my body.
    By learning to use the on off knob in the shower I am saving lots of hot water and it is no sacrifice! Save water and energy. Shower like you’re in a submarine!

    Wednesday 24 September 2014

    New food purity laws

    I heard a radio comment that the food industry’s need to comply with sustainability and carbon emissions rules was bureaucracy. View it instead as necessary religious compliance. If you want to sell food to Moslem countries you have to comply with halal rules. Likewise Jews have kosher rules for food preparation.

    Warmism is the new dominant religion of western world leaders with the decline of previous religious adherence. This Gaiaist religion has the central belief that the world is warming catastrophically due to mankind’s emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. This belief is held so strongly that few world leaders will openly question it. The late Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is the only one that comes to mind. He was even isolated by his own government for daring to doubt.

    Therefore all manufacturers if they want to sell to European and other Western countries have to comply with these new ‘food purity’ laws.

    I have a strong scientific background – a PhD in Chemical Engineering. I have examined much information on this topic for many years. The following information is easy to find if you want to
    1.       Antarctic sea ice has reached a record extent.
    2.       There has been no increase in world temperatures for ~17 years.
    3.       Sea level rise is at the same rate as for recorded history.
    4.       Adverse weather events are not increasing in frequency.
    5.       Increased CO2 in the atmosphere improves plant growth and yields.
    6.       Absorption of infra-red energy by CO2, the so-called greenhouse effect that underlies the belief, will cause ~ 1°C rise in temperature from a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels. This is usually referred to as the sensitivity. This is much less than the much ballyhooed target of 2°C with which we need to comply.

    So with some good effects, no provable (only suspected) bad effects, no strong underlying principle, even, why is this belief among world leaders so strong?

    Barack Obama, Mary Robinson and many more campaign for us to reduce carbon emissions. Even Enda Kenny this week at the UN meeting in New York said Ireland would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Supporters of the theory rely heavily on discredited data – Michael Mann’s hockey stick temperature graph, John Cook’s paper that 97% of scientists believe.

    With such little strong evidence supporting global warming and relying on such discredited information it is no wonder believers keep repeating that the debate is over. The last thing they want to do is get into a debate with an educated observer of the real facts.

    I feel like the little boy in the story of the emperor’s new clothes. Why has no one told me the secret? When Enda and all the world leaders see a beautiful gold gossamer suit, all I see is bollocks. And with this bollocks western industry must comply.

    Saturday 26 April 2014

    We are already doing far too much to fight climate change

    I heard a promo for a radio programme today (Talking Point with Sarah Carey on Newstalk at 13:00 on April 26, 2014). The promo asks why we are not willing to do more to ‘fight climate change’? The truth is we are already doing far too much. It is not just me that thinks it. An article in Forbes magazine yesterday says the same thing.
         We have a carbon tax. On May 1 the tax on coal will increase to €20 per tonne of CO2 emitted. This amounts to €2.40 per 40 kg bag of coal. This tax is paid by old people on a fixed income who heat their houses with coal. It disproportionately affects those who heat their houses with coal and peat relative to those using gas or oil because of the relative carbon percentages of the fuels.
         We subsidise electric cars, useless playthings of the wealthy, to the tune of €10,000 each. And there is no duty on the fuel so the owners continue to benefit at the expense of the rest of us for the lifetime of the car.
    And the perhaps the worst part? Over its lifetime the average electric car will add to carbon emissions instead of reducing them. Because of the energy required to make the batteries each new electric car has the equivalent of 110,000 km more carbon emissions on the clock than a regular car. A driver will have to do a lot of driving to have lower emissions than a regular car over its lifetime. With a range of 100 km or so that is not easy. And I am not even counting the carbon emissions required to make replacement batteries.
         We subsidise environment despoiling windmills that can only generate electricity intermittently. We subsidise biofuels effectively burning food. This increases the cost of food to the world’s poor. It is estimated that the EU has already spent €500 billion fighting climate change with what tangible benefit?
         The truth is that the Earth is not warming as predicted by IPCC models. Remember, catastrophic climate change is supposed to occur as a result of global warming from CO2 emissions. The name change is a hint – the Earth is not actually warming so the name of the problem had to change. The figure shows a comparison of actual temperature with the average of IPCC computer models.
         And it is not just the money. We are scaring our children with the Chicken Licken – Emperor’s New Clothes – fairy tale. We are telling them they are polluting by exhaling carbon dioxide or traveling in a car. We tell them we are killing polar bears even though we aren’t.  
         We are not telling them the good benefits of CO2 emissions – increased agricultural output, reversal of desertification, warming of cooler and temperature regions where people die of the cold. Overall, we are telling them if they consume that are bad people and should stop sinning and repent. It is an old fashioned religious message dressed up in new clothes.

         So what should we do about climate change? Nothing really. But because the lie has been repeated so often now it is accepted as true even though it isn’t. Therefore we have to constantly tell the real story every time a radio programme, newspaper or website tells us we must do more about climate change.