So CO2!
The much maligned beneficial molecule.
Brian Cox vs Malcolm Roberts | Q&A 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3TGmaLXow
Conversations That Matter: Environmentalist Patrick Moore
Dom Lowe Yea I saw that one but haven't watched it yet. Disputation is absolutely central to scientific advancement. Science depends on an enquiring mind to pose the question and theory; the skill and facilities to set up the experiment; the honesty and application to get results that can be observed; suggesting a physical or chemical law to explain what is observed or theorised; and then testing it ad infinitum and subjecting it to critical peer review. Unfortunately we are now in an age where scientific research and opinion is subject to a powerful monoculture emanating from mainly government, deeply influenced by commercial interests, that bodes no dissent. We see it in the hypocrisy of COP26 and Covid 19. (Strange these numerical abbreviations) At the same time the public is urged to fear both CO2 and a virus, people are told to wear masks which obstruct oxygen, raise CO2 and do nothing to stop viruses! The people who preach the gospel of CO2 are the very ones who create most of the CO2 themselves. I remember in the seventies, the doom preachers were saying we were entering an ice age. Now it is global warming from CO2. It is very hard to measure whether the earth is in fact heating up or cooling down. John Locke was one of the first Englishmen (yes him again!) to systematically record the weather, but even so that is less than four hundred years, and earth timescales operate in millions. The Thames froze over in the "Great Frost" of 1683. It froze again in 1963. !816 was famously "a year without a summer" As you have probably realised I am very sceptical of what emanates from government sources, and the elites that represent them, on these subjects, as I do the theory that the relatively innocuous CO2 is the one and only villain of the piece. CO2 levels in the atmosphere stands at about 420 ppm (that's just 0.042%) and varies greatly according to location and circumstance. What of the 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, not to mention all the other trace elements? Why not equal concern for the amount of oxygen we are consuming in artificial man-made combustion processes. How many give this a second thought as they drive their car, take a plane trip or switch on an electrical appliance? "Climate science" is far from being an exact science. It NEEDS to be subject to rigorous debate and challenge. And for starters, we need to see individuals and nations that espouse the new dogma, lead by example not edict.
Dr. Patrick Moore - A Dearth of Carbon?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo
John Ødemark
ReplyDeleteCO² is essential to our existence being as though we are all carbon based life forms .... Just as JD Rockerfeller convinced the world that oil is a fossil fuel introducing scarcity to the mix which is absolute pish and tosh as it's a mineral oil and the second most prevalent self replenishing liquid on the earth ... So COP2 and it's cohorts have convince the world that CO² is a bad thing .... Do you remember the 90's when they stopped using hydrocarbon propellants in aerosols and changed to CO² .... I too remember the 70's and the ice age that was going to sweep the northern hemisphere ... Then in the 80's it was all about global warming so in the 90's they came up with it has to get cold before it warms up and then they changed focus to the "rising" sea levels ..... Which of course has never shown any proof of concept behind the restrictions they introduced to "combat" natural changes .......
Dom Lowe
ReplyDeleteSo Tim you’d give an Australian politician more credence than professor Brian Cox, a leading expert in his field . . . ?
Tim Veater
Think that's a bit of a loaded question Dom. It's better to concentrate on the arguments than the people who make them. But if it's qualifications of the arguer you are looking for, try Dr Patrick Moore (not the famous British astronomer but the long time Canadian energy expert ) here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXxktLAsBPo
. As he sensibly points out, CO2 has been demonised unnecessarily. Neither global warming or its association with CO2 has been proved. Nor has the assertion that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused solely by human activity or that the present level in ppm is harmful been established. Indeed in many respects CO2 is not only beneficial, it is essential for human and plant life. As I have said many times, CO2 is probably the least of the problematic gases and substances put into the environment by humans. Efforts to reduce CO2 may have side benefits of reducing these more harmful ones but that is not the thrust of a deceptive 'carbon neutral' campaign, that as with the Covid issue, distorts the facts and has become something of a religion to those with a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Both have become 'religions' of sorts for a generation deprived of traditional religious belief. The NHS has taken the place of the Church and like it is above criticism. No one is arguing that seven billion humans do not make an impact on the environment, it has been clear since before the Romans made aqueducts and roads. It intensified when Britain pioneered the 'industrial revolution', but we should also realise the benefits it brought in its wake. Advanced nations have exported the pollution problems to poorer ones. We rely on Chinese coal powered stations for the goods we import. It is worth noting neither Russia or China attended COP 26 and are not party to the fairly meaningless commitments. As with a lot of things, a flawed theory may have beneficial consequences, just as an accurate one can be damaging. All I know is that whatever is adopted by government and media as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, seldom is. I'm guessing if you are a whole hearted supporter of Brian Cox, there will be no more tractor rides for you! lol
Nothing about 'god' here I think. I'm just supporting the right of people to disagree with the mainstream opinion about anything and everything. That I believe is the essence of a 'free society' and the only defence against totalitarianism. As Moore points out, the civilization we now enjoy has been built on fossil fuels and the carbon locked up in them. In general terms it has taken western man from primitive poverty to relative prosperity and comfort. Developing nations understandably want the same. CO2 is the product of combusting them to extract the energy which is used either directly (as with your tractor!) or indirectly as with the light switch from the power station. It is a moot point whether all the 'environmentally clean' sources of energy are in fact any cleaner when you factor in all the manufacturing and supply considerations. It is far less straight forward than it is often presented. For example battery powered cars undoubtedly reduce exhaust pollutants, but the making of the batteries themselves is energy intensive and polluting, as well as being environmentally and socially damaging. Then of course there is the small matter of recharging which requires a reliable energy source - probably oil or gas. The hypocrisy of the anti-CO2 movement was COP 26 that entailed thousands of journeys by road, rail and air. All human life has consequences for the planet. The core of the problem is 'consumption' of raw materials and the pollution it generates. This certainly requires human ingenuity to solve, but blaming it all on CO2 is just a trendy over-simplification.
ReplyDelete