Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?


Sunday, 21 April 2013

Climate Control brings a new dawn for People Control (aka totalitarianism), and even children can help.

A. Suppose you happen to have an urge to control the lives of others in all the important details, but that you need a bit of cooperation from them at first.

B. Suppose you have found a topic by which to catch their attention, indeed by which to scare them and make them worried about their future.

C. Suppose, furthermore, you have spotted that most people love nature, and do not want to harm wildlife, and therefore are predisposed to admire and support those people who make it their life’s work to help out the world’s flora and fauna.

Question 1. Where do you go?  What organisation might you join to further your ambitions?

Answer 1. That’s easy. A lot of suitable organisations have sprung up or transformed themselves to take advantage of the new opportunity.

They too discovered that topic in B.  It is of course airborne carbon dioxide, a trace gas in the atmosphere vital to plant life, and thence to virtually all life.  The levels of it have been increasing, and simple calculations suggest that could one day, perhaps by the end of this century,  make the world a little bit warmer, perhaps as much as about one to two degrees centigrade on average*.  Which, if the similarly warmer Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period are anything to go by, would be good news all round: more agricultural land, longer growing seasons, possibly reduced storminess and more predictable monsoons, reduced heating bills in the heavily-populated colder countries, and so on. 

But wait, how is that scary?  Well of course it is not. Quite the reverse.   

But what if you could program up computer models purporting to reflect the climate system, and include in them, not the rising CO2 levels (because that is actually way beyond their capacity to model) but instead a presumed overall effect of suppressing heat loss from the planet to outer space? As well as not being able to model CO2, these computer models can’t model clouds, nor solar variations, nor many features of the ocean very well.  That means there are lots of adjustable parameters to play with.  With a bit of luck, out of the shambles that can result from trying to model such a horribly complex system, you can with a bit of pampering ( ‘flux adjustment’ for example) get outputs that look something like some aspects of our climate.  If you keep the handling of water vapour nice and simple – just let it go up with temperatures, then you might see a positive feedback appear which leads, amidst the spaghetti tangle of very varied projections, to some which give end of the century mean temperature increases of 5 or 10 or 15C.  Bingo!   

Now get the spinners in to write lurid tales of doom and disaster (what a leading guru of this new climate movement called ‘scary’, ‘dramatic’, ‘simplified’ scenarios).  Engage  policy-makers with helpful ‘summaries’ and these vivid scenarios.  Soon the money will be flowing in the right direction as simple (or is it venal?) politicians swing into action in pursuit of the clear advantages they can see for themselves and their causes.  Before you know it, whole political classes will be on board.  Charities once concerned primarily with the poor, or with wildlife, will push all that to one side and champion ‘climate change’ as the big issue, the biggest money-earner they have ever seen. 

So, by way of example, let's say you join the WWF (the organisation formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund).  Lots of jobs there, some with six-figure salaries – this is a wealthy multinational corporation now.

You’ve missed the pioneering years of this great fund-raising.  But you still want to do your bit.  You want to help secure the gains and, don’t forget, you have all these ambitions about control at the back of your mind.

Question 2. What next?  Where should you concentrate your efforts?

Answer 2. That’s easy too.  Who are easier to scare, children or adults?  Well, yes the children.  So there you go.  Scare the children into supporting your ambitions, and not only will that be good for your pension and career prospects in the longer-term, it will also help in the immediate future.  You see some of the children will go home and shame and pester their parents and so they in turn will be more likely to support your political goals.

Google ‘wwf children climate change’ and you’ll get a couple of million hits to help give you ideas. 

But I just want to draw attention to one perhaps less obvious opportunity (hat tip Donna Laframboise): work with slum children in a developing country.  There’s surely a nicely vulnerable group to get started with.  It may also be a way to tap into EU funds.

Never mind that those children have more serious, more real, and more challenging problems to look forward to, and that their parents are tackling them now.  No never mind that.  Planet needs saving.  Do what we say. Before it is too late.

You’ll soon learn the score, and it will give you an early experience of control over others – that’s what you want after all.  For more details of this opportunity, visit http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/04/19/latest-from-the-wwf-eco-indoctrination-of-slum-kids/

*Note added 22 April 2013 Here are the simple calculations, widely used, deployed by distinguished physicist Will Happer.
Extract, referring to delta-T-2, the expected temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 levels: 
' In fact, the basic physics of the CO2 molecule makes it hard to justify a number much larger than ∆T2 = 1 C – with no feedbacks. The number 3 C comes from various positive feedback mechanisms from water vapor and clouds that were invented to make the effects of more CO2 look more frightening. But observations suggest that the feedbacks are small and may even be negative.'
Further illustration is given here.

No comments:

Post a Comment