Humanity is United Against Chemistry!

A leading Spanish daily newspaper, El País, came today with a surprising little insert. It was dedicated to ass kissing radical ecologist movements and it came with the striking headline:

“Everyone united against CO2

Somewhere along the line between Galileo and today people have completely lost their sense of rationality and reason. For FSM‘s sakes, a leading media outlet in a presumably civilised Western society is taking a noble stand… against Chemistry? Against trees? “Everyone Against CO2, Because Trees Don’t Need To Respire”.

The modern environmentalist movement is finally coming into its own. After decades of actually presenting rational and logical complaints and moves, it found there was nowhere else to go after getting the whole world to agree. So the next logical thing to do is extremise even further. The collapse of Communism as a viable political movement does not seem to dishearten the people who advocate against the foundations of Western development and all the benefits it entails.

I focus initially on the political dangers of the movement to take action against ‘global warming’ (whatever that is) because it’s, quite frankly inhumane. The radical environmentalists would have you tell Africa and the rest of the developing world that they cannot develop. Bearing in mind the dire state of African society in a general sense, I can only stress the inhumanity of this position.

Fuck the oil companies. There, I said it. Happy? I honestly believe oil companies are a leading cause for much of the geopolitical distress of today. Nuclear power is emerging as an incredible alternative. People say ‘nuclear power’ and Greenpeace answers ‘Chernobyl’. The fallacy of invoking a test case over 20 years old which was in a state that used smoke and mirrors as national internal policy is self evident. Today, nuclear power is the modern, cheap, clean and reliable alternative to oil as an energy source. France satisfies 80% of its electricity demand through nuclear power alone.

On a scientific basis, the argument that man causes climate change is nothing short of absolute ridicule. Ice core surveys indicate that CO2; is a result of temperature increase. This is very neatly explained by oceanographic studies which show that the oceans release carbon dioxide when heated, over extended periods of time.

What causes the temperature increase, which after all is self-evident? For one, the temperature increase is nowhere near as dire as Al Gore would have it. In fact, contrary to his diatribe, there is a distinct trend of temperature increase during one of the more recent periods of industrial stagnation and decrease in carbon dioxide throughput by industry. There is also a temperature decrease during the post war economic boom. Clearly man has little to nothing to say in how temperatures move worldwide.

What causes climate change? For one, the single most important direct influence on climate is the Sun. The Sun is the cause of there being a climate.

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, postulates and goes on to show that cosmic radiation is another climate regulator in his latest book, Chilling Stars.

Nicholas Stern said, once he published his report on climate change that “the debate is over”.

I cannot help myself but draw parallels between creationism and evolution in the talk of man made climate change.

One the one hand, you have a leader professing undeniable truths and meaningless diatribe. The debate is over, according to Fundamentalist Christians and proponents that man is a cause of climate change such as Al Gore.

On the other hand, you have a bastion of science, rationale and skepticism, who hold true to investigation and in upholding the evidence in face of rhetoric. You have both Darwin and those who say climate change is not caused by man, such as Nigel Calder or Christopher Monckton.

It is a testament to the fact that history repeats itself endlessly that we are facing, again, a Mother Church vs Science situation with Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth playing the role of the Pope.

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. Of course you are right. CO2 is needed for plant growth. It is also needed to keep the earth from a deep freeze, as it would happen if there were no greenhouse gases at all.

    But it is the excess that is the problem, so you can argue that El Pais expressed it badly, but it is not completely wrong.

    I agree that changes in the sun do probably have an influence on climate, and a few correlations do seem to point in that direction. But they are not responsible for the current rise in temperatures. Models do show that the influence of the sun is overwhelmed by the greenhouse effect. Records show that in the last 50 years or so changes in the radiation of the sun did not change significantly enough to cause the current warming. You may want to see my post here, but also others on my blog.

    Concerning Nigel Calder and his views, you may be interested in this post on realclimate.

    It is funny that you see a parallel to the intelligent design debate, because I see that as well, but the other way. The ID proponents point to a few scientists (rarely biologists though) who do have doubts about evolution. The same goes on in the climate discussions. But the overwhelming majority accepts that global warming is there and almost certainly caused by human emissions.

    You also mention the lag of CO2 concentration after a temperature rise in ice core records. There is probably no climate scientist who does not know this, but it does not disprove the greenhouse effect at all. It is a feedback effect, explained in one of my comments of my post I linked to above, but also here on realclimate.

    Sorry for the long comment.

  2. Sorry for the delay in posting your comment, the spam catcher caught it because of all the links you posted.

    I argue that the contribution of man made CO2 to the atmosphere is negligible compared to natural sources such as volcanoes, and regardless, the Sun is the determining factor in the Earth’s climate. Nigel Calder’s idea that cosmic rays are also determinant is also interesting and far more plausible than man made climate change. Al Gore certainly gives mankind much limelight, perhaps way too much.

  3. Ah, quite frankly, to underestimate the power of the Sun is ludicrous.

    Parallels are drawn between sunspot activity and temperature changes, two activities which show almost perfect 1-1 correlation, far better than the sketchy CO2-temp. graphs.

  4. The claim that volcanoes are responsible for the CO2 rise is actually the most easily debunked. See my post about a simple calculation and follow the link there to my post about the volcanoes.

    I also happen to have a a post about the non-correlation. And the seemingly nice correlations of sun activity brraks down in recent times.

    Sorry that you will have to moderate this comment again – but it’s a complex subject.

  5. My parallels between intelligent design and the man made climate change argument lay in the rhetoric used – you rely heavily on a single website, realclimate.org which dismisses other hypotheses merely out of name.

  6. I don’t know if I pointed it out already, but for all the talk that this century was critical in swinging the climate against us, there’s been no correlation between industrial production (and hence man made CO2 throughput) and temperature. In the early half of the century before World War II, the world plummeted into a deep economic depression. Meanwhile, temperatures rose at a constant rate. At the post war economic boom, when industrial output was greatest, temperatures decreased. At the recession of the ’73 energy crisis, temperatures started increasing again.

    And trying to look for answers before that is kind of moot since global industrial production has only really become significant the latter quarter of this century.

  7. Afraid I agree with fermiparadox here. The vast majority of climatologists believe that there is a real, large scale threat from manmade CO2 emmisions. The sceptics maily quote the same few scientists, whose findings are usually discredited in peer review journals and still trundled out on a regular basis.

    The collossal emmisions of CO2 that we are directly responsible for have led to unprecedented levels of acidity in the ocean and, it is widely accepted, an increase in temperature. The fact that higher temperatures cause and increase in natural CO2 release is further cause for alarm. Not a get-out clause.

    I encourage everyone to take some responsibility on this issue and reduce your emissions however possible.

  8. This article is quite old (in ‘net terms!) now but I remembered the consternation I felt when I read it. THere seem to be many liberal minded, critical thinkers who I would agree with on nearly every other topic who still persist in believing climate change is a myth. Yourself included. 😉

    Being a rational, thinking type hopefully this article will change your mind:

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

    You’ll be pleased to note it includes relevant links to peer reviewed journals and publications on the subject of climate change. Al Gore may have pushed things a bit but bear in mind things need doing, and doing now. Let him push it a bit, it may just do the trick.

  9. Yeah, yeah I read it, thanks 🙂

    I still find Calder’s exposition on cosmic rays far more consistent with current and past trends than human effects, however.

    Humans certainly have an obligation to minimise the effect they have on the environment as much as possible – the CO2 scare, however, reeks too much of anti-capitalist sentiment to me. Being a person who believes in the African Dream, I could not consciously damn that continent by forbidding it to develop.

  10. eltower, I have given you a pointer about the cosmic ray connection, did you read that?

  11. Ah, I must have missed it. It’s very interesting.

    However, Nigel Calder’s lengthy exposition on Cosmic Rays manages to very effectively and elegantly explain major climactic trends on Earth with the aid of cosmic events.

    Quite frankly, it seems a little too anthropocentric to administer so much weight to human effects on climate change when cosmic radiation is one of the main activators of events anyway, climactic or otherwise.

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: