NST Letters: Enough of That Distraction (i.e. Global Warming & Copenhagen Treaty)


Finally found a printed copy, as it didn’t appear in the online version. Many thanks to Sue Lynn for spotting it and noting it to me!

From NST Letters 4 Dec 2009:

Below I append my original letter in full (‘cos I’m too lazy to retype the NST version right now):

Copenhagen: Why the rich nations aren’t keen

Dr Chandra Muzaffar in his letter ‘ENVIRONMENT: A climate deal is a must’ laments that Many analysts are doubtful that “a deal will be sealed” during the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Quite frankly, the industrialized nations don’t seem very enthusiastic about a new, overarching carbon emissions deal to follow up where the Kyoto Protocol leaves off. And who can blame them? The Kyoto Protocol itself, like all ‘carbon cap and trade’ schemes, has proven to cost far too much and achieve far too little.

Take Germany as a representative example. For Germany alone, in 2005 alone, adherence to the Kyoto Protocol cost 6.2 billion Euros in increased energy costs. Continued adherence is estimated to result in a loss of 18.5 billion Euros by 2010 – and that’s without applying the stricter parameters negotiated at Copenhagen.

How about more recent results? Australia’s Kyoto-styled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is due for 2010. Starting steps towards it have already caused electricity prices to shoot up 22%, with a predicted doubling of energy costs by 2015.

That’s just two countries. What’s the price tag for the whole world? Using the estimates of the Third Assessment Report released by the UN’s own International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a mind-boggling USD 150 billion a year needs to be spent globally in order to reduce temperatures by just a miniscule 0.001 degree Celsius.

To reduce temperatures by a meaningful amount – say half a degree – it would cost a staggering USD 75 thousand billion a year. For comparison, the actual global economy for 2008 was a mere USD 70 thousand billion.

Is it really any wonder then that the developed nations don’t seem too keen on cutting their own economic throats – and at the tail end of a major global recession, no less?

But what has all this spending actually accomplished? Unfortunately, nothing – since the Kyoto Protocol was enacted, the European Union’s carbon emissions only decreased by 1.5% instead of the Kyoto Protocol target of 8%. Even worse than nothing was achieved for signatories Japan (8% increase) and Canada (22% increase). Money well spent, eh?

You may be starting to see why the Kyoto signatories don’t seem too keen on throwing more money into the well-intentioned, but ineffective wishing well at Copenhagen.

But surely reducing our carbon footprint in order to safeguard our future is worth a few thousand billion here and there? After all, we’ve all seen the resultant natural disasters and worldwide flooding portrayed in all those films and documentaries. We have to stop the planet from getting a fever, right?

I’ll be blunt. Despite continually increasing CO2 levels, global warming has failed to manifest as hysterically predicted.

The BBC reports that ‘For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures… even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.’

In fact, temperatures have actually decreased by 0.41 degree Celsius since 2001. The lack of real warming is evident in the much fretted over poles – the Arctic, where ice is at the same levels as 1979 and sea ice is increasing at record rates; and the Antarctic, where ice is at the highest levels ever recorded and the continental ice sheet is expanding at record rates.

What about the increased natural disasters we were warned about? That ‘catastrophic climate change’? Well, the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season has just ended with the fewest named storms in 12 years. A total of zero reached the mainland USA – so much for climate change causing more Katrinas!

However, if the reader does not know about all this ‘cool’ news, I don’t blame them. Instead, I blame the dishonest ‘climate scientists’ who continue to churn out outright lies about the state of our planet.

Recently, hackers broke into the servers of the Climatic Research Unitof The University of East Anglia and exposed thousands of emails and documents. In them, the researchers bluntly note the cooling temperatures and blatantly discuss how to tamper with the results to show warming instead. This travesty of ‘science’ has been dubbed Climategate, now a very hot search term on the Internet.

What’s more, just last week the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research in New Zealand was exposed as having artificially altered pre-1970 temperatures to appear much lower than present temperatures, thus implying massive warming without any basis in reality or justification.

What other ‘settled science of global warming’ is next to be exposed as complete fakery? If it turns out that carbon emissions don’t really cause global warming, then what are the billions and trillions being spent on Kyoto and Copenhagen for?

I am all for reducing pollution, protecting the environment and weaning off fossil fuels. But please – let the focus be about proven and urgent issues like fixing China’s choking smog problem. And let it be carried out in a sensible fashion like improving renewable energy technology instead of penalizing economic growth.

The two-decade long focus on global warming is a distraction from the real issues at best, and a massively wasteful blunder at worst. It’s high time we took a good, hard look at the facts behind the hype.

But that would probably cause everyone else to jump off the Copenhagen bandwagon too.

See here for more on Climategate and Global Warming is Unfactual for a list of evidence contrary to global warming theory.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “NST Letters: Enough of That Distraction (i.e. Global Warming & Copenhagen Treaty)”

  1. waterfriend Says:

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH- circulate among friends.
    IS CARBON DI OXIDE THE VILLAIN?

    Such terms as carbon credit find a place in newspapers almost daily. I don’t know what is all this about. To me CO2 sustains life on earth. Has the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gone up? Has it been proved experimentally?
    Before Industrialization
    The whole of America and most of the old world were inhabited by a comparatively small population, a majority of whom depended upon meat and fish. Farming depended entirely on rain water as big dams were unknown. The grasslands of America and Australia didn’t produce food grains. Coal and other fossil fuels were not commercially exploited. In those days we may presume that a proper balance existed between CO2 and other ingredients of the air like N2 and O2 in spite of forest fires, the like of which we witnessed in California recently.

    After Industrialization
    Commercial exploitation of coal began first followed by oil and natural gas, resulting in increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Simultaneously two other developments followed: increase in population (both human and animal) and corresponding growth in food grains production. Big dams were constructed and more and more areas of land were brought under cultivation. Mechanization and the use of artificial fertilizers made leaps and bounds in production of food grains, fruits and other commercial crops. The Prairies of North America became the granary of the world. Compared to grass, food grains and sugar fix a large quantity of CO2. The major items responsible for such CO2 fixation are:

    food grains like wheat, corn, rice, oats, soybean etc
    underground vegetables like potato, tapioca, beetroot etc
    fruits like apple, grapes, banana, dates, cherry, pineapple etc
    sugarcane etc

    Experts can calculate the total quantity of CO2 produced by industry and that absorbed by vegetation as mentioned above and the marine vegetation in order to find out whether the net balance is favoring CO2 concentration in the air. An easier way would be to experimentally ascertain the percentage of CO2 in the atmospheric air (being heavier than air CO2 is available near the surface of the earth). If CO2 level increases O2 level should decrease. In my childhood (I am 70+) O2 level was 20% as mentioned in my text book. Has it changed? An atom of carbon combines with two atoms of oxygen to form CO2 which is absorbed by the leaves of the plant to form starch. In the process two atoms of oxygen are released into the atmosphere. We may say that each carbon atom burnt ultimately results in the release of two atoms of oxygen, thus resulting in increase in the level of O2. Level of CO2 dissolved in the ocean water should also be checked. If this level increases, fishes would die en mass. Has this happened? If the level of CO2 dissolved in ocean waters decreases, plant life in the ocean cannot produce enough starch by photosynthesis. This will be a hazard for fishes and other marine life.

    The volume of animal and hence plant life in the oceans is much more than that on the continents. This is because the area of the oceans is seven times the area of the continents. Also, the oceans are deep. Hence the volume of water is very much more and can contain a large population of marine life. The necessary starch has to come from plant life. So, the total bio mass in the oceans is considerably higher than that in the continent. The carbon di oxideàPlant starchàAnimalsàCarbon di oxide cycle is there in the watery medium, just as in our atmosphere. All the gases, including nitrogen, will be present in dissolved state in the oceans too. Here industrialization has not affected the ‘atmosphere’ of the ocean. This fact has to be recognized in any discussion on Global Warming.

    [The percentage of various components of atmospheric air as obtained from the websites is given below:

    Nitrogen 78.1
    Oxygen 20.9
    Argon 0.9
    Neon 0.002
    Helium 0.0005
    Krypton 0.0001
    Hydrogen 0.00005
    Carbon di oxide 0.035!!!!!!!! (Poor, innocent CO2 has been maligned unnecessarily)
    Methane 0.0002
    Ozone 0.000004

    This would suggest that the percentage of oxygen has slightly increased. If this is true it augers ill, as forest fires may become uncontrollable with increase in the level of oxygen in the coming years. Therefore, this line should be investigated separately by experts. My guess is that with unchecked use of nitrogenous fertilizers, the total bio mass in the earth could have increased. The requisite extra nitrogen must have been drawn from the atmosphere along with CO2 releasing extra oxygen into the atmosphere as pointed out above.]

    The importance of proper scientific study cannot be over emphasized. Mother Nature maintains her balance, whatever her children may do!
    MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAP
    The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.
    A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.
    My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.

  2. peng Says:

    Thanks for reproducing your letter here (because I don’t read mainstream newspapers) ,and would have missed out such an interesting piece of information!

  3. Mad Bluebird Says:

    Global warming is the biggist fruad around but yet its being tuaght as fact in these school science text books The text book writters should be sued for fruad and siddition

  4. wits0 Says:

    I avoid Blogs that buy, “Global Warming”. Such Bloggers lack insight and fall flat for populism.

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    It’s my (boastful) pleasure.

    Don’t discount the mainstream media entirely – not everyone who works in them are brainwashed, from personal accounts I have heard.

    Who knows… One day there may be a sea change!

  6. Adifferentview Says:

    EU pledges 7.2bn euros over three years to help poor nations adapt to climate change. How much will be pocketed or swallowed by the ravenous leaders of those poor nations?

  7. Mad Bluebird Says:

    The EUROWEENIE UNION has pledged 250:0000 pasaquas to curb the HOT AIR comming from the EUROWEENIE PARLAMENT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: