|
Greenhouse Effect is a Myth, say Scientists
 Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument was outlined on Channel 4 in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
A spokesman for the Royal Society said: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.
"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions." By Julie Wheldon
ACTING ON CO2
The Association of British Drivers today unveils two simple solutions to political concerns about CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels.
Claimed solutions from politicians involve introducing new taxes, increasing some existing ones, and imposing travel restrictions. This has proved baffling to members of the public, who fail to see how giving yet more money to Gordon Brown or his successors can possibly affect the environment.
The ABD today reveals altogether simpler proposals involving not taxation but the use of proven scientific approaches that we are confident will carry public approval.
The first proposal concerns the use of highly sophisticated devices that would be capable of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converting it into harmless and even useful substances, such as oxygen. Any other by-products would be bio-degradable.
To be aesthetically pleasing, the devices would be relatively small in size and so to be effective would need to operate in very large numbers. To achieve this, the machines would not only be capable of increasing their conversion capacity over time, but would actually be capable of producing copies of themselves so that they could in time spread across the entire surface of the planet to increase the overall efficiency of the process.
In a revolutionary move, waste material from the conversion process would be recycled as raw material to expand the size and thus the capacity of the machine. To be as environmentally friendly as possible, these devices would be entirely solar powered, and would require virtually no maintenance.
The second approach involves the construction of massive storage facilities capable of absorbing and storing large amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. In order for the process to work well the combined capacity of these facilities must be greater than that of the atmosphere, so a very large surface area across the entire planet would need to be utilized. To address the predictable concerns of environmentalists over this, such storage facilities would need to satisfy visual amenity criteria and nimbyism, naturally.
To have maximum flexibility these removal and storage processes would be reversible. For example, a rise in temperature from natural causes would be sufficient to cause carbon dioxide to degas from these reservoirs. To comply with health and safety regulations the transfer of carbon dioxide to and from these facilities would occur safely over periods of time.
The ABD recently held a competition to devise names for these two solutions, and in spite of some nonsensical stuff submitted by Toad McGrew, we are today delighted to announce that there were sensible entries and that the results are now available:
* The carbon dioxide conversion machines will be called 'Terraforming Recyclers Enabling Environmental Solutions', or 'TREES' for short.
The carbon dioxide storage facilities will be called 'Open Carbon Extraction And Neutralisation Systems', or 'OCEANS' for short.
ABD Environment Spokesman Ben Adams comments "We believe these devices are highly effective and will continue to be so."
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory added: "I am sure that Gordon Brown will be delighted that these simple and politically-acceptable solutions mean that he will not have to go to the bother of introducing new ecotaxes after all. Close to £40 billion each year is plenty."
Sir Richard Branson: Please make the cheque payable to 'The Association of British Drivers'.
Notes:
TREES LIKE CO2
Over the past 20 years, approximately 5,000 articles have been published in major scientific journals showing how plants benefit from higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide with or without elevated temperatures. As carbon dioxide concentration increases, plants including food crops substantially increase their rate of photosynthesis, rate of growth above and below ground, their water use efficiency, production of fruit and seeds, and resistance to a variety of stresses. The demonisation of plant food gas, a naturally occurring trace compound essential for life that has been present in our atmosphere at levels up to 18 times the current value quite naturally, including an era when it rose to over 10 times the current level as the planet entered an ice age, is ludicrous.
CO2 MAKES TREES GROW
A recent survey carried out by scientists at the University of Boston and the NASA space agency shows that tree foliage in Britain has increased noticeably in recent years. At the same time trees come into leaf earlier in the spring and keep their leaves longer in the autumn. Satellites measuring radiation reflected back into space from earth are able to detect the particular reflection caused by chlorophyll in leaves and this has enabled them to measure the increases. They estimate that over most of Northern Europe, including Britain, vegetation has increased by 12% since 1981. 12% of Britain is now covered by trees, up from 10% a decade ago.
OCEANIC CO2 ABSORBTION/RELEASE
As indicated, use of proven methods is always advisable, and in this instance there is a large body of evidence that a similar process has worked effectively in the past. Careful examination is required to see the principle at work, since without high time resolution the absorption or release of carbon dioxide might be seen as causing a contemporaneous temperature shift, which would be bothersome in terms of global warming or cooling and might lead to a belief that a low atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (390ppmv) was in some way harmful, even worthy of King Cnut style taxation. However such concerns are groundless as all high time resolution studies have shown that a temperature change always occurs before the rise or fall in carbon dioxide levels (4) which should be reassuring to politicians and environmentalists alike.
The unexplained lack of tropospheric amplification (where the atmosphere warms more than the ground) demonstrates clearly that current climate modelling and associated predictions are no basis for policymaking. Sulphate aerosol fudges cannot account for the observed trends.
The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle Here Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be Here Sir Richard Branson's offer to anyone who can extract millions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere: Here
|
