Thursday, January 15, 2009

Global Warming. More on how it is propagandist garbage.

So, as I'm on a roll with this issue and as I've apparently pissed off a friend by proposing that global warming is a scam, I thought that I'd write one of the interviewees in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Dr. Ian Clark is a respected researcher and lecturer at University of Ottawa and was interviewed for the film (click here for his bio). I asked him two questions:
  • Are you convinced that humans have little to do with global warming?
  • What does it hurt for the world to be monitoring their CO2 input?
Here's his reply:

Thanks for this feedback from your friends. I am more convinced than ever that human-caused climate warming is a fiction. I have been following the science for years now, and the evidence discussed in the GGWS [Great Global Warming Swindle] is solid. Moreover, the climate has been on a net cooling trend for the past 10 years.

Further, the AGW proponents have lost all scientific credibility with the fiasco over the hockey stick (featured in Gore’s film) and NASA’s Y2K error in reporting North American temperature data. Greater scrutiny of past periods where CO2 has climbed at times of great warming show clearly that other drivers are responsible and CO2 plays no role in the warming or subsequent cooling.

The reasons for speaking out against the global warming rhetoric are many. Many neutral or even skeptical people remain supportive of Kyoto-type measures to reduce CO2 thinking that reduction of emissions is good for us all and reduces pollution. This is not so, and this approach is not only flawed, but environmentally damaging. First, it distracts valuable dollars and environmental good-will away from real environmental problems of pollution, urbanization, ecosystem loss, dead zones in the oceans and many many other serious environmental problems.

Second, the measures we are adopting have huge negative impacts on the environment. Look at ethanol, the so-called green fuel, as it allegedly recycles rather than emits CO2.


The energetic cost in fossil fuel to produce corn and grain-based ethanol is close to or greater than the energy yielded. Therefore, it is at best a wash for energy production.

For this, we have converted food production to fuel production, raising the price of corn to unheard of levels – and corn is the principal source of carbohydrate for the global population. Corn ethanol requires intensive fertilization, as it is a C4 type plant and grows very quickly, depleting the soil of nutrients. The fertilizers are produced from natural gas, and the nitrate and ammonia released to surface waters kill fish.

The trend to green biodiesel requires tropical oils – which has accelerated tropical rainforest destruction for its production. Other CO2-reduction schemes – deep geological burial, or boutique energy sources such as solar and wind, are great ideas with the sole net effect of making money for someone. None will have any effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

CO2 has had a bad rap, undeservedly for such an important, non-polluting compound. We have much to do on the environmental front. However, don’t believe for a second that we can tweek the CO2 dial like a thermostat and adjust global temperature. Global temperature is indeed affected by a greenhouse gas – water vapour.

The water cycle dominates and CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. It has never in the past affected climate, and it certainly has not gained such a role in the past century. Global climate change is driven by solar effects. This is the science of global climate change, but you won’t hear about it from Al Gore or the CBC.

Finally, we will never reduce the climb in CO2 by the token measures that might be adopted by our mislead governments. Nor should we. It is a nutrient, and it seems that the only real, measurable effect of increased CO2 is a little greening of our planet. Considering the modifications we have done over the past centuries, a little greening is not a bad thing to have.

I originally asked for this information on the understanding that I wouldn't publish, but after reading Dr. Clark's reply to me, I asked whether I could pass it on and this is his response to that, for the record:
Indeed, please pass on my comments. If there is any certainty in the climate debate, it is that environmentalists and regular taxpayers are being swindled.

Dr. Clark wrote an excellent letter to The Hill Times, which also outlines how we are being hoodwinked by appalling science, corporate interests and misused political power. It sickens me almost as much as when I hear people say, "We can't change anything," or "I don't want to talk about it." I'm sure these are the same people who bitch and moan when their politicians do stupid shit and mostly all they do is stupid shit.

Anyway, have a look and a listen. The educated dissenting voices are growing louder and will certainly be at full howl after the inauguration of the new US president who actually believes in real science.