Read this, it
doesn't take much reading, it isnot very long:
Carbon And Our Climate by Einar Vikinur
What Einar essentially says is that there's not enough Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to warm the world.
Here's some extracts from his paper:
paragraphs above can be backed up by numbers and calculations and
graphs until the cows come home, none of which could be disputed. All
the statements about absorption, rarity and heat release are undisputed
facts of nature.
What these facts scream at us is that it is impossible for carbon dioxide alone to heat up the atmosphere
is such an important statement that I am going to reiterate a few
things. There are not enough carbon dioxide molecules to do the job.
The molecule does not absorb heat well, because it is fussy about
wavelengths. There is a lot more water vapour than there is of carbon
dioxide. Water vapour is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas.
Whatever heating is happening cannot be the work of carbon dioxide,
except for a small portion. It is physically impossible. The physics
does not make sense. Whatever is happening, carbon dioxide cannot be
blamed for it. What’s more, the gas is actually plant food and having
more of it promotes plant growth. Greenhouse growers the world over
pump into their greenhouses a carbon dioxide concentration several
times that of the atmosphere.
The population is large, and
we are making a real mess of our home—and the solution to
over-population lies not in coercion of anyone but in the emancipation
and education of women. We have chopped down too many trees (I love
trees). We are not investing enough in renewable energy, specifically
on how to harness in a distributed way the ultimate source of all
energy, the Sun. We are using up resources fast. We should allow fish
stocks to recover (I love marine creatures of all kinds), and stop
dumping so much rubbish into the oceans and into landfill. We need to
work against religious bigotry and the resulting violence, and we need
to feed and govern and protect all people properly, on the basis of
liberty and compassion. What we should not be doing is wasting huge resources on reducing carbon dioxide emissions
, because it would be on a problem which does not exist. The other problems do exist
Those were my 'boldings' on those two sentences, my emphasis.
endless argument about this global warming thing as we all know.
And it seems impossible to get at the truth. And I think
most of the reason for that is simple confusion caused by a lack of
interest in getting things straight in the first place - defining your
terms, making clear what you're talking about.
Are we arguing if
global warming exists or not? Do we mean the same thing by global
warming? Over the same time spans? Measured in the same
way? In the same places? Are we arguing about the cause of
it? Are we arguing about the effects of it? Are we arguing
about the cure for it? What the hell are we talking about?
let's grab the most obvious thing first - the thing most likely to
cause us some damage, distress. Is that 'global warming'? No.
What is it? It is 'cap and trade' and 'carbon price' , etc., in
the name of reducing carbon emissions in the name of halting or slowing
Before we get involved in such drastic and
dramatic and painful schemes we should know for certain just what
effect we are aiming for - just what is going to happen with different
degrees of success in our scheme and how that success will translate
into success in the greater objective: global warming.
I've never seen any figures. And I've never heard anyone talk any.
have heard people loosely say that we're approaching a 'tipping point'
and if we don't get emissions down we'll reach it. But that's
very indefinite, isn't it?
Never have I heard anyone say that if
Australia cuts their emissions by such and such a percentage then the
global warming will be cut by such and such.
And it seems obvious even to ill informed, unknowledgeable me that no one can say it.
No one knows what the total real contribution to global warming carbon dioxide has.
one knows how much this contribution changes day by day as other
factors become more prominent because of changing circumstances.
one knows how powerful the underlying machinery, as suggested by Einar,
is, just how much these solar cycles and what-not are going to bring
about this change willy-nilly.
No one knows hardly anything.
Those experts who beg us to listen to them listen to 'the
science' and assure us most emphatically that global warming IS real,
IS man made, WILL cause catastrophe still don't know much than that,
still can't, I think, answer those questions.
But what everyone
does agree on is the relative size of Australia's contribution.
Less than 1%. To Carbon. Not to global warming.
Remember, that is still an unknown quantity, the precise contribution
of man's carbon dioxide.
But to carbon dioxide. 1%
Given a complete cessation of our contribution we'd make a 1% difference in the carbon dioxide produced by man.
IF the system has not reached a critical point,
IF the system is not, in fact, on a certain path in the direction of warming from other causes,
then IF man made carbon dioxide is wholly responsible for global warming we will make a 1% difference to global warming.
I don't know how old those figures are: with China producing another
coal fired electricity generating plant every week (!) our proportion
must be shrinking day by day.
Hence I think it is ridiculous.
Panic. Bandwagon. Knee-jerk. Something/anything like that.
Not sane, sensible, reasoned, thoughtful, practical.
Not at all.