In response to Clark Cross: Hot air everywhere in the emissions crusade,
D. Reynolds wrote:
Harping on about greenhouse gas emissions created by mankind is one way of ensuring the masses are controlled, and taxes increased.
People are passionate about the ‘environment’. We exist within it, and can affect it locally. It therefore becomes an issue when we see and hear claims that we are destroying it unwillingly or otherwise. Enter the do-gooders in support of government initiatives. They throng together, shout from the rooftops, and frighten children. All without seeking the scientific basis on which such claims are made, but nonetheless use ‘some’ science to strengthen their claims, and claiming a consensus where there is none – science that when scrutinised is found wanting, weak, corrupt or corrupted.
Professor Happer held one particular seminar in which he brought a CO2 meter and set it up at the side of the stage whilst he commenced his talk. After a short while, he referred to the meter and showed the audience the reading in part per million by volume. It read around 1,700, yet there was not a single vehicle inside the auditorium – the level of CO2 came from the attendees as they sat breathing naturally. All life forms exhale CO2, plants feed on it during daylight. The volume of CO2 in the world’s atmosphere is around 0.037%. Of that percentage, the first 20ppmv increase global temperature by 30°C, thereafter the warming effect is logarithmic and reduces as the volume increases to the point that above 300ppmv the warming effect is negligible to non-existent. Other factors control global temperatures – Sun; Stars, Moon. Their strengths, orbits, and proximities.
The vast majority of greenhouse gas is water vapour – 99%. The remaining greenhouse gases are methane and carbon dioxide, yet of that 1%, nature itself produces by far the major amount, 97% in fact, 3% by mankind – globally (IPCC data). That amounts to 0.00111% of CO2 in the atmosphere globally. If we now take (for argument’s sake) that the UK’s CO2 emissions are 1% of the world’s, then we divide 0.00111 by 1% = UK CO2 output at 0.0000111%. Cutting this amount of CO2 by any amount will produce absolutely nothing in terms of changing the climate, or temperature either in the UK, or globally. Yet the cost to industry and mankind in general would be catastrophic.
Mankind can clean up his environment, but he cannot control global climate. But he sure as hell can be taxed to death in an attempt to ‘save the planet’ – but from whom? – and FOR whom?