AGW nonsense, IPCC swindle, CO2 rubbish and Global Climate Change

The graph shows the temperature at the Ice Cap of Greenland as a function of time

On 5 Dec. 2009 I wrote in this blog about my reasons for calling the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  a load of humbug.
Al Gore, David Cameron, Kofi Anan and most journalists apparently don't understand scientific method at all. They have all jumped the popular band wagon of claiming human responsibility for the change of climate in recent years.
I warned in 2009 against the political implications of accepting a theory based on very thin arguments, while refusing to listen to the many people, who had competent reasons to field serious objections to the idea about AGW.

When it is said that 100s of scientists, if not 1000s, support the theory, the first comment should be: who exactly are they?
Myrmecologists?
Why not people in the field of Physical Geography?

In fact, I found one, who has the courage to speak up and say that “the emperor has no clothes on”, Professor Ole Humlum at Oslo University. The following is based on his observations – unfortunately his book is in Danish, but it deserves a wider readership.

The second comment, I have, is the classical Aristotle statement, repeated by Einstein: Majority never decided the value of a theory; 1 person, who can put a spanner in a theory, is enough to eliminate every other argument. This is entirely in line with Karl Popper’s ideas of Scientific Falsification – to which I subscribe 100%.

The third comment must be to express the shock I got, when I read through the goings on at the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I first heard about IPCC during the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, COP-15, in 2009.
The conference was basically a disaster, as a) only IPCC’s AGW-positive opinion was presented (not exactly a scientific approach) and b) no decisions were taken – or at least only a set of pseudo-decisions that are unlikely to have any bearing on the assumed problem: human action causing warming of the globe.

So why is there such an adherence to IPCC’s beliefs (OBS, NOT proof, as their conclusions are a forgone matter) and often times public ridicule of people who have a different opinion?
Could it be that IPCC has been established under UN, that UN has a level of credibility and that states that follow IPCC’s recommendations and findings therefore seem credible and also add to both IPCC’s and UN’s credibility – repeating the circle?

The graph above, constructed according to isotopic analyses (GISP2) after drilling into the Greenland ice cap, tells an interesting story without using many words: throughout the last 11000 years, from the “Big Freeze” during Younger Dryas, the reasons for which remains enigmatic, and once again in 6000 BC and until today, there have been rather large climatic changes going on – none of which can be allocated with any reason to human activity in the form of excessive man-generated CO2 output. In fact CO2 levels were almost constant in the period 600-1850. (The well known Hockey Stick graph, see below).
As Prof. Humlum points out, periods with warming correlate to positive heavy human cultural activity, while cooling off periods are synchronous with problems, even disasters, such as the black death and the "Little Ice Age."

One of the problems with the CO2 theory is, that we actually know much to little about the origins of the climatic mechanisms, the impact of the oceans, atmospheric distribution and the proportion of Human CO2 to geological CO2 (volcanoes and other).

There are many good reasons to focus on water vapour, ozone, cloud cover, dust, sun activity, tilting variations of the Earth’s axis and – in particular – Henry’s law of CO2 absorption in water. Most of the CO2/water interaction happen in the upper 3m of the oceans’ surface! It is not rocket science to realise, that at various pressures and temperatures there is some dramatic chemical reactions going on.

Here are some really important facts that help understand the speed with which CO2 distribution over the two hemispheres takes place.

Ashes from a volcano eruption well to the north or the south of equator will take a long time to become evenly distributed in the atmosphere – probably several years. In contrast, the ashes from an equatorial volcano are distributed rather quickly. After the nuclear tests in 1950-70, that all took place on the northern hemisphere, CO2 with a C14 signature (i.e. humanly generated) took several years to become evenly distributed.

This contrasts with the observations from Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958, that the variation in atmospheric CO2, i.e. bang in the middle of a highly industrial period, happens synchronously on the northern and southern hemisphere! As most human CO2 is produced north of the 30th latitude, we should have seen a clear difference between the northern and southern hemisphere.
BUT WE DON’T!!!!

This means that the majority of CO2, although increasing at various rates, is NOT humanly generated.
Something, therefore is afoot.

When Mount Pinatubo blew up in 1992, there was only a very minor increase in atmospheric CO2 despite million of tonnes of CO2 being released. As IPCC is of the opinion that the oceans only slowly absorb CO2, something is clearly wrong with their assumptions.

IPCC – and thereby the politicians – have jumped to conclusions they should have been too clever to adapt. It helps nobody to form a final opinion and implement policies based on erroneous models, unless this opinion has a political value for the people in charge. Perhaps this is where “der Hund liegt begraben”?

The result is that professional scientists with diverging opinions find it difficult to join the discussion. It is also a fact that funding and budgets favour those who fall in line!
Another buried dog, perhaps.

When we have excessively warm summers, it is taken as a confirmation of the theory.
When we have rain and chill (like 2011 in the UK, it is "just a seasonal variation" that confirms the theory.
Ehh?
It was the Hockey-stick curve from the GISP2 measurements in Greenland that caused the furore about the correlation between humanly generated CO2 and climate change. It showed an ostensible increase of atmospheric CO2 from a stable 280 ppm in the period 600-1850 to the rapid "industrial increase" of 380 ppm today.

The Hockey Stick graph - deflated

This model has since been discredited to a certain extent, but the important conclusion people forget to draw is, that if the CO2 level previously was stable, why do we then see the rather dramatic climatic changes that made it possible for the Vikings to grow barley on Greenland (ca. 1000-1100) and that later made the Thames freeze over in the winter (the Little ice Age in 15-1700)?

The real conclusion, although not a solution to the issue, is,
a) that the climate has changed considerably in the past, without any relation to the change in CO2 level!! and
b) that the concept "global warming" must be seen in context - we are actually a good deal colder than experienced by the Romans and the Minoans!!
and
c) the graph has been used as an indication that we are on the way to a new ice age.
Well, that one I shall leave uncommented, avoiding predicting the future, as I otherwise would have made the same mistakes as the IPCC.

Our politicians are leading the train down the wrong track with totally misunderstood investments, that prevent us from allocating money to a much more balanced research situation.

Worse: our scarce resources are being spent on solving a problem over which we have no impact whatsoever!

Here's an ominous example:
In the UK all energy companies are increasing their prices way faster than inflation would predict.
The average family now pays £1300/year for gas/electricity.
This is double the amount of 3 years ago.
The prediction is, that in 2018 they will pay £2800/year.
Why?
Because all companies are falling over each other's feet to become "green", i.e. investing in renewable energy supply - despite a) no solid direction of what that means (= ineffective and haphazard investment with little predictable ROI) and b) developing solutions to a non existing problem (= the totally absent correlation between a global warming, that actually is not happening, and the humanly generated CO2 output.)

In England there are 6mill families that have to choose between heating and food during the winter months. This number will more than double by 2018.

If this is not madness, what is??

Consultant limerick

My colleague and friend Eddie Obeng from Pentacle, The Virtual Business School, has on his web-site posted this cartoon, which inspired me to the following Limerick *):

There once was a client in trouble

whose earnings had started to wobble

He called for support
and received a cohort
of consultants who swarmed on the double









*) Limerick: a 5-line verse following strict rules;
Line 1-2-5 have 3 beats and rhyme
Line 3-4 have 2 beats and rhyme

England and Europe in turmoil

Europe, the world perhaps, and definitely England are in turmoil.
11 state leaders have been toppled recently because of the financial crisis and more will fall. At the moment even the Coalition Government in the UK cannot come to grips with their responsibilities as a government.
Why?
Simply because they don’t listen, don’t understand their responsibilities as representatives of the people – and quite frankly are totally consumed by one thing only: being in power.

The kind of politicians we elect (or who put themselves forward) are incompetent money-grabbers and because power corrupts, they have created a chasm between themselves and the general population. Despite 200 years of economic theories (Keynes, Adams, Marx, et al.) we still don’t possess the ideal recipe for responsible governance.

The post war years with hope and signs of a peaceful future (1950s-1990s) have ended in global chaos. The very moment we had economic prosperity, human greed and lust for power took over and new incumbents joined the fray.

In the relatively well regulated world – normally called the West – it has slowly but surely begun to create the same socially divisive borders as we saw in past centuries.
This is paradoxically driven by an unheard of technological development (communication, electronics, computers) and the social, economical and cultural differences in the world in the wake of the second World War, creating the opportunity for asset rich states to “suck” the underdeveloped world.

It was initially a slow process, as we in the West do have some sort of a magnifying glass aimed at the politicians, making outright corruption difficult.
But as I have always maintained: “if they can, they will” – and as it proved: they could and they would.

The paradox is that the fast technological development also created a fertile ground for our demise, while the “sucker states” learnt and copied the rich countries.
The “poorer states” took over production and assets – or we even handed it to them on a silver tray - and the “rich states”, who had become specialists in the juggling of credit to pay for our exorbitant lifestyles, discovered they couldn’t pay themselves top salaries any more. So, while selling our crown jewels, the credits dried up – and everyone started to look around for a rich uncle.

There was none – but there was a lot of 3rd world countries with resources, willing to take over, work for less and using their new found power.

Are we surprised? We only have to look at what happened at the time of the Black Death in the 14-15 Century. With the Lords of the Manor in trouble and fewer labourers willing to do the slave-jobs, workers could begin to demand their share of life’s rewards.

Our learning is all in the history, if we care to look.

In other (shorter!) words: in the West – certainly in England - the good life has come to an abrupt halt, as the income to pay for a credit based lifestyle dried up, asset distribution has become unrealistic and the opportunity to “suck” others has vanished.

So – if we can’t “suck” other countries, as they have also collapsed, where do the politicians, i.e. the powers that be and who want to continue to be, turn?
Simple!
The answer is: Inwards.
We see it in various degrees in all European countries.

As human beings, as a species, we have hardly left the African Savannah, mentally spoken.
With the mentality of hunters and gatherers our behaviour has not changed much from the daily fight for survival.
We are still tribal, i.e. grouping into political parties and nurturing superstitious tendencies to form religious factions. We also naturally divide ourselves into “chiefs and Indians” and we still consider “the others” our enemies.
This is not new – just read “Lord of the Flies” by Golding or “1984” by Orwell.

It is said that you can tell a nation by the way it treats its elderly.
Coming from a country (Denmark) that praised itself of “few have too much and fewer too little”, I am watching the English Tories (Cameron/Osborne) in awe.
The 28th annual British Social Attitudes report from the National Centre for Social Research's is stomach churning reading.
It confirms, that my observations from 30 years ago concerning this island’s anachronistic class society, were correct – and that it has become worse.

Lord this and Lady that?
Who cares.
This school or that school?
Who cares.

Well – obviously a small group cares: Lord and Lady this and that care.
And they are the ones running society these days!
They have created a divide between ‘the haves and the have-nots’.
For the socially conscious of us this is hard to stomach.
The result is a growing disinterest in politics by us, the ordinary people.

We have entered a period of class war, as witnessed during the London riots and the fact that child poverty is more rampant than ever, elderly people die of hypothermia and pensioners are being robbed through a tax system that favours the rich.

Privatisation and greed has created a system with extortionate property and rental prices, the latter in particular, as the English have never understood the rental market other than as a source of extracting even more money from those who don’t own a home – in contrast to the rest of Europe, where rented quality apartments are considered normal, affordable and a must.

Energy and fuel prices are crippling and the banks, owned by the tax-payers, are allowed to stop lending and focus on own profit and bonuses, rather than on the banking objectives that are a vital part of the economic process.

While support of problem ridden parts of the world is a virtue, paying £bill to Pakistan and India and ignoring the old and the poor in our own country is disgusting.

Everything the present Tory government has done points in the direction of a deplorable attitude towards the less well off in society: granny tax, tax on state pensions, forcing people with just a little money in the bank to sell their houses in order to pay for old age nursing, relief of tax on the rich, hypocritical statements like “we are all in it together”, moving the venerable NHS from a social “serve all” towards a private money-spinner – every single item and the many mistakes that Cameron/Osborne have made, illustrate their lack of listening ears and total disinterest in what the population wants.

The statement that “we will continue to make unpopular decisions for the best of the country” is a smack in the face of the constituents,

England is doggedly tied to it’s class structure,.
Where once there were three main classes: working, middle and upper class, we now have an underclass and an upper-upper class and the disparity has never been sharper or more breath-taking in its extreme.
It is these divisive structures, captured in the British Social Attitudes report, which hold that poor and unemployed people are ‘lazy’ and the architects of their own impoverished misfortune.

To top it all, our politicians have allowed an unchecked huge influx of non-producing immigrants, who demand the implementation of their own culture and legal system while many of them “suck” us for benefits and threaten us with death and revenge once they have the majority.

We need immigrants to keep the wheels turning, but why not demand the simple things even the Romans 2000 years ago applied: speak our language, work - and respect our laws.

It is hardly rocket science and it kept the Romans in the black for 700 years – so why not for us?
Instead we have created a user and benefit society with surreal contrasts, such as a man, who is good at kicking a leather bag full of hot air around on a grass field, can become a multi-millionaire, while a woman who takes care of the sick and dying can barely make ends meet.

Will Cameron/Osborne listen?

Will Labour do much better?
The track record from 1997-2010 makes me wonder.

The creation of the Euro was a HUGE mistake.
Two major proponents, Kohl and Mitterand in the 1990s, were ostensibly unable to spell the word "economics" and yet they pushed ahead with an illusionary political idea that had the heading "Failure" written across it from the start.
Economic union without fiscal union?
Even a 6th former could see it was wrong for 3rd rank economies like Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal to have access to credit on a par with Germany. It opened the ball for a spending spree never seen before - and now the boomerang has returned.
In England Blair sanctioned the Euro idea based on the thought, that it would make business transactions much easier. Fortunately there was massive resistance to swap the £ with the Euro.
The joke is, that the UK has fared considerably better than the Euro-countries, but how Blair/Brown managed to lead the UK into a position as Europe's most indebted country (way over £1.4trill) is beyond me - and perhaps most other people.

So what now?
Alternatives, anyone?

We need a paradigm shift, but who will lead?
Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps ;-) !!!!

.