Sunday, March 18, 2007

Green policies won't do it

Senior politicians have spent the past week queuing up to demonstrate their green credentials.

Gordon Brown promised to save five million tons of carbon by helping people reduce emissions from their homes with grants to improve insulation and energy-saving lightbulbs.

Many people will probably find 5 million tons of carbon a lot but it isn’t. Last night I was trying to see how much the CO2 of Britain would reduce with my journey reduction ‘policy’. I found that it would reduce CO2 by 6.2 million tonnes and then I found out that Britain contributes 554.2 million tonnes as of 2005 which would mean I would only be reducing it by 1.19%. Doing what Brown and I both suggest would only reduce it by around 2%. Not a lot as you can see.


alanorei said...

Carbon emissions are an irrelevance, except as a means of yet more state control.

The recent C4 documentary put the whole climate change scam in perspective. One scientist interviewed stated that CO2 was 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere. It may be as low as 0.03%. This amount is trivial with respect to greenhouse gas but CO2 from human activity accounts for less than 3% of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

Even then, H2O or water vapour accounts for 95% of greenhouse activity. But Earth's climate is not significantly affected by greenhouse gases. The main determinant is sunspot activity, affecting solar radiation (cosmic rays) and in turn cloud formation and thus climate.

Al Gore's notorious graphs of global temperature tracking CO2 were set up to conceal a salient fact. CO2 was actually tracking temperature, not the other way around.

However, the Blair-Brown-Cameron 'green gang' can't control sunspot activity but they can hit you via increased taxation for the amount of fossil fuel you effectively burn.

Theirs is essentially a 'climate change' protection racket. They are no more honourable than prohibition gangsters, less so in fact because they pretend to be doing you a favour by robbing you of more tax money (to add to the tax ripoff for the other worse-than-useless gov't project, 'multi-culti-ism').

Scientifically, their 'climate change' policies are about as valid as the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post because the light is better there than where he dropped them a few streets away.

These sites are helpful.

youdontknowme said...

I saw the documentary and I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming either.

Kendrick said...

There are several verty erudite debunkings of that documentary floating around the Internet. The director, Martin Durkin, is known as a liar - his previous series for Channel 4 was the only show they've ever put on that's required them to subsequently broadcast a prime-time apology for misleading viewers.

Specifically in this documentary, the climate scientist who gave the 0.054% figure had his interview edited to remove the part where he said "... but even small concentrations can have a massive effect". He has written for a couple of newspapers recently indicating his disgust with the director for totally misrepresenting his position by selective editing.

On the CO2-temperature-tracking point, the science is that the CO2 acts as a magnifying effect to warming, like so: as the Earth warms, less CO2 is dissolved the ocean, so there's more in the atmosphere, so the Earth heats up, so the oceans warm, so more CO2 is released... it's a positive feedback cycle. So the CO2 is not the initial factor in a warming, but once warming starts, it magnifies the effect. It only takes a small amount of another warming effect (like sunspots, etc) to kickstart this positive feedback cycle.

Don't believe everything you watch on television.