Climate change once again
As may be becoming clear I am feeling increasingly convinced of the case that curbing our emissions in order to stop or reduce climate change is a bad idea. It would appear that I now have a side in the climate change debate; responding to the well evidenced, but still uncertain in scale and nature, trend that man is contributing to a global warming by adapting to it rather than attempting to control it.
However, choosing a side presents new questions because it would appear my side is losing. There is now no mainstream voice in UK politics which stands in opposition to the consensus behind Kyoto-plus.
Of course, that is simply another reason to join UKIP, Matthew.
"This latest fashion in Government is a convenient excuse for higher taxes" said Mr Farage. "We are being led to believe that there is a scientific consensus that global warming exists, when in fact the science used to support the theory stresses uncertainty at best."
"In the 1970s, there was a serious debate about whether we were entering a new ice age and the cause back then was based on emissions. Now, those same emissions are allegedly the cause of global warming."
"Every politician in the world is busy jumping on the ‘green’ bandwagon, while the general public ends up paying for it. If the traditional parties want popular support for their green policies, they had better find the proof that global warming exists and isn’t simply the new witchcraft."
It's a pity that Matthew is not a fan: he could be, as the Emperor put it in Empire…, "a valuable asset." Ah well…
It is indicative that the vast majority of the criticism of global warming and the Stern Report seems to be confined to the blogosphere, with only a few lone voices in the MSM protesting. However, as is becoming typical, it is the blogosphere that is more informed, the blogosphere which is employing arguments about not only the economics but also the science of climate change. Here, for instance, is a typically plain article from The Englishman, comparing two very different attitudes to the science of warming.
So it looks like "Real Climate" is arguing that the models are correct, even thought the earth doesn't realise yet how warm it is meant to be yet and is obstinately refusing to play along, whereas "Junk Science" seems to be trying to see how the models fit into the limited data we have of how the world is actually reacting, and then forecasting from that. I think I know who my money is on.
Quite: it is Junk Science who are actually employing the most sensible science and yet it is the Real Climate attitude that is the accepted one in the MSM. This is very dangerous.
We are talking about making some very, very expensive decisions here, on science that is, at best, uncertain and, at worst, simply wrong. Our politicians are about to make some incredibly serious mistakes and we are about to start paying for them…
Some more Junk Science links for your amusement.
- The pub trivia guide to globak warming
- This "global warming" thing… What Watt is what?
- "Global warming," also known as "enhanced greenhouse" will not cause catastrophe
- If "global warming" is real, what could be causing it?
- Cosmic rays and climate change
And, of course, just for that fuckwit Al Gore and all of the fucktards who watched and believed that moron's film:
- The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Given the number of JunkScience.com readers expressing some confusion over the "greenhouse effect," carbon dioxide, global warming and climate change, we thought it might be a good idea to pull together a page of questions-and-answers, complete with a few nice little graphics explaining the facts.
We thought that since there is long-standing, intense public interest in these topics and that vast sums of public and private monies are being thrown at the much-dreaded "problem" of "global warming," there should be a wealth of quality explanations and graphics to which we can point readers to alleviate their confusion.
That was about the time that our quick project and quiet weekend went awry very quickly.
Who would have thought so many "issue" sites, environment sites and, yes, government sites, could be hosting so much utter garbage on a topic subject to such intense scrutiny? Who could have imagined having to spend several hours wading through searches to find a few simple graphics correctly expressing the greenhouse effect? Who knew that so many blowhards are out there pontificating from complete ignorance?
That last article is probably the best one for the scientific layman to have a look at as a number of the others are quite involved: however, some points that you really might want to consider are the following:
- 90% of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by water in various forms: about 70% is down to water vapour and about 20% to water droplets (in the form of clouds).
- Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution, i.e. including methane, etc., could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases. What this means is that we may contribute to 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.
Recall that water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it's various forms is 90% of the greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect. Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, thus 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.
- If you are a fan of the Stern Report, remember that Britain's total carbon emissions are something like 2% of the total world carbon emissions. So, Britain's contribution to the total greenhouse effect is 0.02 x 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.005 x 100 = 0.05% of the total greenhouse effect. Yes, folks, we in Britain are contributing a massive HALF OF NOUGHT POINT ONE PER CENT of the total greenhouse effect. Now, isn't that worth paying for?
Ah yes, say the Green loons, but every little helps: we must lead by example because the greenhouse effect is baaaaaaad and eeeeeevil! Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.
Forgetting about the unfortunate-but-commonly-used terminology for a moment, is the so-called 'greenhouse effect' bad?
Only if you think undesirable a habitable planet with relatively stable temperature. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon's mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (-243 °F). The Lunar temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. So, if you fancy such a temperature range then a greenhouse effect-free world is for you, otherwise you might want to be pleased we have it here on Earth.
Oh, right. That little lot should leave most Moonbats speechless for a while, whilst you return to the article and get ready to really fuck them up!
But anyway; go, read and enjoy. And then join your humble Devil in going forth and kicking the ignorant in the metaphysical knackers when they balls on about how we are killing the planet.