The Myths Associated With Climate Change

 Read this, it doesn't take much reading, it isnot very long:                 Carbon And Our Climate by Einar Vikinur

 What Einar essentially says is that there's not enough Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to warm the world.

Here's some extracts from his paper:


The paragraphs above can be backed up by numbers and calculations and graphs until the cows come home, none of which could be disputed. All the statements about absorption, rarity and heat release are undisputed facts of nature.

 What these facts scream at us is that it is impossible for carbon dioxide alone to heat up the atmosphere—this is such an important statement that I am going to reiterate a few things. There are not enough carbon dioxide molecules to do the job. The molecule does not absorb heat well, because it is fussy about wavelengths. There is a lot more water vapour than there is of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas. Whatever heating is happening cannot be the work of carbon dioxide, except for a small portion. It is physically impossible. The physics does not make sense. Whatever is happening, carbon dioxide cannot be blamed for it. What’s more, the gas is actually plant food and having more of it promotes plant growth. Greenhouse growers the world over pump into their greenhouses a carbon dioxide concentration several times that of the atmosphere.

The population is large, and we are making a real mess of our home—and the solution to over-population lies not in coercion of anyone but in the emancipation and education of women. We have chopped down too many trees (I love trees). We are not investing enough in renewable energy, specifically on how to harness in a distributed way the ultimate source of all energy, the Sun. We are using up resources fast. We should allow fish stocks to recover (I love marine creatures of all kinds), and stop dumping so much rubbish into the oceans and into landfill. We need to work against religious bigotry and the resulting violence, and we need to feed and govern and protect all people properly, on the basis of liberty and compassion.

What we should not be doing is wasting huge resources on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, because it would be on a problem which does not exist. The other problems do exist                                    :


Those were my 'boldings'  on those two sentences, my emphasis.

There's endless argument about this global warming thing as we all know.  And it seems impossible to get at the truth.  And I think most of the reason for that is simple confusion caused by a lack of interest in getting things straight in the first place - defining your terms, making clear what you're talking about.

Are we arguing if global warming exists or not?  Do we mean the same thing by global warming?  Over the same time spans?  Measured in the same way?  In the same places?   Are we arguing about the cause of it?  Are we arguing about the effects of it?  Are we arguing about the cure for it? What the hell are we talking about?

Well let's grab the most obvious thing first - the thing most likely to cause us some damage, distress.  Is that 'global warming'? No.  What is it? It is 'cap and trade' and 'carbon price' , etc., in the name of reducing carbon emissions in the name of halting or slowing global warming.

Before we get involved in such drastic and dramatic and painful schemes we should know for certain just what effect we are aiming for - just what is going to happen with different degrees of success in our scheme and how that success will translate into success in the greater objective: global warming.

I've never seen any figures. And I've never heard anyone talk any.

I have heard people loosely say that we're approaching a 'tipping point' and if we don't get emissions down we'll reach it.  But that's very indefinite, isn't it?

Never have I heard anyone say that if Australia cuts their emissions by such and such a percentage then the global warming will be cut by such and such.

And it seems obvious even to ill informed, unknowledgeable me that no one can say it.

No one knows what the total real contribution to global warming carbon dioxide has.
No one knows how much this contribution changes day by day as other factors become more prominent because of changing circumstances.
No one knows how powerful the underlying machinery, as suggested by Einar, is, just how much these solar cycles and what-not are going to bring about this change willy-nilly.

No one knows hardly anything.  Those experts who beg us to listen to them listen to 'the science' and assure us most emphatically that global warming IS real, IS man made, WILL cause catastrophe still don't know much than that, still can't, I think, answer those questions.

But what everyone does agree on is the relative size of Australia's contribution.  Less than 1%.  To Carbon.   Not to global warming. Remember, that is still an unknown quantity, the precise contribution of man's carbon dioxide.

But to carbon dioxide.  1%

Given a complete cessation of our contribution we'd make a 1% difference in the carbon dioxide produced by man.

IF the system has not reached a critical point,
IF the system is not, in fact, on a certain path in the direction of warming from other causes,

then IF  man made carbon dioxide is wholly responsible for global warming we will make a 1% difference to global warming.

And I don't know how old those figures are: with China producing another coal fired electricity generating plant every week (!) our proportion must be shrinking day by day.

Hence I think it is ridiculous. Panic. Bandwagon. Knee-jerk.  Something/anything like that.  Not sane, sensible, reasoned, thoughtful, practical.

Not at all.