The hypocrisy of climate change

[Mervyn and Trish]

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the arguments about climate change and whether it is or is not caused, wholly or partly, by human beings and our carbon dioxide emissions (which we all create every time we breathe out, whether we own a car or coal fire or not!) but I have recently encountered an example of what I can only call hypocrisy on the issue, which set me thinking.

We were recently in North Yorkshire and visited the lovely Aysgarth Falls, where there is a visitor centre. Within that centre there is the now obligatory exhibit on climate change and it includes some statistics. Notably it tells you how much Carbon emissions you create it you travel to Aysgarth from various starting points, such as Leeds and Harrogate by car. It then tells you how much (less of course) you will create if you do the same journey by bus/coach.

However, even if you could find a bus/coach travelling directly from these different places to Aysgarth on the day you wished to visit, the first thing you would see when you arrived at the entrance to the car park is a sign saying "No Coaches". Hmmmm! Example 1 of hypocrisy.

My second thought was the recent UN gathering at which scientists made more doom laden projections about the state of the planet at the end the century and beyond unless we reduce our emissions to zero by then. I wonder how many of them practiced what they preach and arrived at the meeting by bike or on the bus? Did those coming from abroad set out early enough to arrive by much less damaging ship than air? Surely to take the lead these meetings should these days be conducted exclusively by video conference? Example 2.

So to the EU, one of the great advocates of reducing emissions, to the extent that they are even prepared to take the risk of our lights going out by demanding old power stations are closed before the more efficient replacements are built. How much longer will they sustain the ludicrous practice of moving the whole parliament, people, paperwork etc, between Brussels and Strasbourg and back every month? Surely that is an outrageously extravagant producer of CO2, much worse than me driving to Aysgarth by car? And what of the environmental cost of keeping two large buildings lit and heated? Example 3. Surely the time has come to close one of the centres and stop the monthly trek between them.

And finally to our own parliament who impose a range of "green" taxes on us. Example 4. I have some simple recommendations for them to demonstrate they are serious. They should rule that any travel by car or air by MP's (up to the very top) is at their own expense with no reimbursement. The only travel expenses which should be paid are for bike, bus or train. Instead of threatening to take away bus passes from pensioners they should be issued to everyone. And rail fares should be slashed. All this paid for by the "green" taxes instead of trousering them to pay for other things.

There you go. Leadership from the front and climate change cracked in a few easy stages.

[Frank Manning]

This one could run and run. The biggest hypocrisy is to perpetuate economies totally dependent on fossil fuels and then preach doom and gloom. Councils urge us to abandon our cars for the bus or bike, at the same time permitting development of out of town shopping areas, at the expense of local shops.
But then politics of all shades have always to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Whoops that is banned too!

[Silver_Shiney]

Several years ago we were all warned about the serious consequences of alleged greenhouse gases and CFCs destroying the ozone layer. It has been proved in the laboratory that CFCs destroy ozone.

However, there are a few things that "they" didn't tell you.

Firstly, the hole was discovered by accident, while researchers were looking for something else. It is not known how long the hole has been there, how big it should be, or if it should exist to begin with. It "resides" some 12-19 miles above the surface of the planet. CFCs are considerably heavier that air molecules - even if heated so they could rise, there would come a height above which they would be cooled sufficiently for them to sink back down again. This is well below the bottom of the ozone layer. We've not heard much about the holes in the layer recently - that's because they're shrinking.

I'm sure you remember Al Gore giving dire warnings about man-made global warming causing polar ice to melt, and giving a heart-tugging illustration of one of a diminishing number of cuddly polar bears perched on top of a small chunk of ice, waiting for it to finally melt so it would fall into the sea and drown. Several misleading points, whereas the truth is somewhat different. The polar bear population is steadily rising. So is the amount of arctic ice. Polar bears are strong swimmers so coming off that little block of ice wouldn't have fazed it one bit.

This whole man-made global warming thing is a massive con. Yes, the climate is changing but it has been doing so ever since the Flood.

[Dark Knight]

the idea to reduce emissions from power plants, cars etc is correct and can only do good
the reduction of reliance on fossil fuels is also a good idea, as is switching off lights in empty building etc
however the science and implementation of legislation to help facilitate this, is p*ss poor and lacks vision and clarity

The tree huggers leading the blind

[towny44]

History tells us that man's ingenuity has overcome most problems we face, therefore to slow down CO2 emissions is likely to be counterproductive to humanity speedily finding a lasting solution to the provision of a clean power source that has no harmful side effects.

[kaymar]

[quote="Silver_Shiney"

This whole man-made global warming thing is a massive con. Yes, the climate is changing but it has been doing so ever since the Flood.[/quote]

[Mervyn and Trish]

This whole man-made global warming thing is a massive con. Yes, the climate is changing but it has been doing so ever since the Flood.

Of course the "experts" would tell us it caused the flood!

[Stephen]

Thinking ahead

I've already been onto Mr Branson to book my plot on Mars.

A detached property sitting in a thousand square mile plot. Do you think it qualifies for a ride on mower

[Silver_Shiney]

This whole man-made global warming thing is a massive con. Yes, the climate is changing but it has been doing so ever since the Flood.

Of course the "experts" would tell us it caused the flood!

The "experts" deny the Flood ever happened

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Noah lived in Tewkesbury

[Not so ancient mariner]

Several years ago we were all warned about the serious consequences of alleged greenhouse gases and CFCs destroying the ozone layer. It has been proved in the laboratory that CFCs destroy ozone.
(selective snip)
We've not heard much about the holes in the layer recently - that's because they're shrinking.

.

Just being Devil's advocate here, but might the holes be shrinking because the production and use of the agent responsible for causing the holes has been dramatically reduced: - which one of the few things that developed nations have been able agree on.

[Silver_Shiney]

Several years ago we were all warned about the serious consequences of alleged greenhouse gases and CFCs destroying the ozone layer. It has been proved in the laboratory that CFCs destroy ozone.
(selective snip)
We've not heard much about the holes in the layer recently - that's because they're shrinking.

.

Just being Devil's advocate here, but might the holes be shrinking because the production and use of the agent responsible for causing the holes has been dramatically reduced: - which one of the few things that developed nations have been able agree on.

But as I said, because the stuff is so much heavier than air, how was it supposed to have got up there in the first place?

[Manoverboard]

Read a report that stated that there is a volcano spewing out CO2 from the bottom of an Ocean someplace in such huge volumes that make our collective efforts look absolutely futile.

The climate, we were taught, constantly changes as the Earth rotates by one degree on it's axis one way then t'other.

The mumbo jumbo is just a way to increase taxation

[Silver_Shiney]

Read a report that stated that there is a volcano spewing out CO2 from the bottom of an Ocean someplace in such huge volumes that make our collective efforts look absolutely futile.

The climate, we were taught, constantly changes as the Earth rotates by one degree on it's axis one way then t'other.

The mumbo jumbo is just a way to increase taxation

exactly

[Not so ancient mariner]

But as I said, because the stuff is so much heavier than air, how was it supposed to have got up there in the first place?

As it understand it, it is not the CFCs per se, but their breakdown products (mostly chlorine & bromine) that catalyse the conversion of ozone to plain oxygen. This happens throughout the atmosphere, but mostly in the 'Ozone layer' as that's where its concentration is highest.

I too do not fully understand the mechanics of atmospheric currents that govern the movement of heavier than air gases high into the atmosphere; - but just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't happen.

[towny44]

But as I said, because the stuff is so much heavier than air, how was it supposed to have got up there in the first place?

As it understand it, it is not the CFCs per se, but their breakdown products (mostly chlorine & bromine) that catalyse the conversion of ozone to plain oxygen. This happens throughout the atmosphere, but mostly in the 'Ozone layer' as that's where its concentration is highest.

I too do not fully understand the mechanics of atmospheric currents that govern the movement of heavier than air gases high into the atmosphere; - but just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't happen.

But you should certainly question it, and not take it as Gospel, like the BBC do, until it is proved beyond doubt.

[Silver_Shiney]

But as I said, because the stuff is so much heavier than air, how was it supposed to have got up there in the first place?

As it understand it, it is not the CFCs per se, but their breakdown products (mostly chlorine & bromine) that catalyse the conversion of ozone to plain oxygen. This happens throughout the atmosphere, but mostly in the 'Ozone layer' as that's where its concentration is highest.

I too do not fully understand the mechanics of atmospheric currents that govern the movement of heavier than air gases high into the atmosphere; - but just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean it can't happen.

But you should certainly question it, and not take it as Gospel, like the BBC do, until it is proved beyond doubt.

Exactly

[Not so ancient mariner]

But you should certainly question it, and not take it as Gospel, like the BBC do, until it is proved beyond doubt.

Over the years I have spent quite a lot of time dissecting the data produced by drug companies to support their claims that their new product is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Absence of evidence of an effect, is not evidence of absence of it! Have you ever tried proving a negative?

Just saying "Rubbish! - I don't believe it" is not an argument that will convince anyone.

[Silver_Shiney]

But you should certainly question it, and not take it as Gospel, like the BBC do, until it is proved beyond doubt.

Over the years I have spent quite a lot of time dissecting the data produced by drug companies to support their claims that their new product is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Absence of evidence of an effect, is not evidence of absence of it! Have you ever tried proving a negative?

The problem, as I see it, is that these wild claims are made as though they are hard and fast fact.

[Not so ancient mariner]

The problem, as I see it, is that these wild claims are made as though they are hard and fast fact.

Do I know they are hard and fast fact? No; - but the knowledge I do have convinces me that they are not 'wild claims', but represent an entirely plausible - indeed probable scenario.

[towny44]

The problem, as I see it, is that these wild claims are made as though they are hard and fast fact.

Do I know they are hard and fast fact? No; - but the knowledge I do have convinces me that they are not 'wild claims', but represent an entirely plausible - indeed probable scenario.

Clearly the BBC mindbenders have done a very good job on you Notso.

However even if you and the BBC are correct I refer you back to one of my original posts, if we do too much to slow down the release of CO2 then we risk stifling man's inventive genius to find a cost effective way to produce a power source that is both clean and leaves no noxious residue.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The problem, as I see it, is that these wild claims are made as though they are hard and fast fact.

Do I know they are hard and fast fact? No; - but the knowledge I do have convinces me that they are not 'wild claims', but represent an entirely plausible - indeed probable scenario.

If they were hard fact, they wouldn't have to change their predictions every five years, because what they guessed before turned out to be wildly out.
What gets me is when they say it's been the hottest/wettest/driest month/year/day etc "since records began". In terms of the life of the planet records began yesterday at best. We have much evidence of major climate change (and back) long before records began and long before we invented the motor car.

[Silver_Shiney]

Do I know they are hard and fast fact? No; - but the knowledge I do have convinces me that they are not 'wild claims', but represent an entirely plausible - indeed probable scenario..

An article published by Russ Humphreys on 11 August 2009 makes interesting reading:

Governments today are trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the air, because they fear that the greenhouse effect (which traps heat trying to leave the earth) of CO2 will trigger a global climate catastrophe. They point to computer simulations suggesting that result. But the evidence suggests that about 6,000 years ago God created the world with large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This lasted 1,656 years, from Creation until the Genesis Flood. The rocks and fossils laid down by that flood suggest that the result was very beneficial, with no climate catastrophe, as we shall see.

Aside from disposing of the main climate-change myth, that CO2 brings catastrophe, we first need to debunk a few secondary myths from both sides of the debate:

Myth 1: CO2 is a pollutant. Wrong. Other things coming out of smokestacks and car exhausts are indeed pollutants; things both harmful and undesirable. Examples are:

a. Sulfur dioxide, which returns to us as sulfuric acid in rain, and
b. Soot, particles of carbon that blacken the landscape and get into our lungs. [

Such pollutants can be greatly reduced, and should be. But carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas, is a God-designed part of the cycle of life. We do (and must) exhale it with every breath. Plants do (and must) “inhale” it in order to make all of their solid tissue: leaves, wood, bark, roots, fruit, seed, etc. It is amazing that the green we see around us comes from the tiny amount of carbon dioxide in the air today: 387 parts per million, just 0.0387% of all the molecules in the air (as at March 2009). The amount of CO2 in the air would have to increase some hundredfold, say to 30,000 parts per million (3%), before it would become a problem to our breathing.

Higher CO2 levels actually improve plant growth and productivity. There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of the world’s crops and forests due to the increased carbon dioxide concentrations, contributing to the food and fiber production to meet the needs of the growing human population. (1)

Myth 2: CO2 is not increasing. Wrong. Scientific records show a clear increase of 30% since 1880 and 22% from 1958 to 2007, the period of direct measurement. The measurements are not difficult to make or interpret. Moreover, we would expect roughly that amount of increase from the total volume of CO2 being released into the air. Debunkers of anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW) should focus on other points.

Myth 3: The earth is not warming. Analysis of temperatures from many locations, excluding those affected by urban growth, (2)show a slight average (see Myth 4) global increase over the last century of about 0.5 degrees C. Whether this increase is due to normal climate cycles over the centuries, changes in the Sun’s activity, (3) natural CO2 emissions, or man-caused CO2 emissions is the subject of fierce debate. However, the earth began warming following the end of “The Little Ice Age” (about 1850), well before the increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels. (4) In fact, global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in emissions.

A simplistic approach would suggest that increased carbon dioxide levels should increase global temperature, but the existence of 10 times current levels before the Flood without runaway warming suggests that the current and likely increases will not have a major effect. (5)

Myth 4: Global warming must mean hotter tropics. Not necessarily. Much of the earth is cool year-round, such as the poles and high latitudes. Most of the ocean, below a depth of a few hundred feet, is barely above freezing. We could increase the temperatures of just those cool parts without warming the tropics and increase the average global temperature a great deal. In fact, most climate measurements appear to show a greater warming trend at high latitudes than in the tropics. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore(6) fails to make the distinction. Perhaps he found that particular truth inconvenient!

Myth 5: Melting icecaps will drown the continents. Wrong. In the last 100 years the sea level has risen by 180 mm (7 inches). In the unlikely event that all the ice melted and the temperature increased as much as the highest temperature climate model predictions (warming also causes thermal expansion of the ocean water), the oceans would rise by a few dozen meters. That would reduce the land area of the continents by a few percent. Of course this would affect people living in low-lying coastal areas but there would be plenty of other land above sea level.

Myth 6: Global warming is making weather more violent. Records of storm frequency and intensity show no increase in the violence of weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones and tornados. The number of severe tornados in the USA, for example, has declined 43% between 1950 and 2006. (7)

Minerals from deep geologic strata indicate there was a time in the past when the earth’s atmosphere had much more carbon dioxide than it now has ((8) ). Fossil plants from the same strata show the world was indeed warmer—at the poles, not the equator. The fossils reveal a very green, wet world, teeming with animals and plants. There was likely plenty of land area available, with a lack of glaciers and polar ice caps and correspondingly higher sea levels. In fact, there seems to have been much less desert, and much more plant-growing land in higher latitudes than we have today.

The lesson we should learn is that higher carbon dioxide in the air and global warming are good things, not bad … unless you live on low-lying coastal land!

Some secular geoscientists are aware of the higher CO2 levels in the past, but they are not generally speaking out against the prevailing “politically correct” policies, which are trying to limit carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global warming. Part of their silence may be due to fear of the science establishment, but it may also stem from lack of understanding of why the world of the fossils had so much more carbon dioxide than today’s world. To the secular scientist, it is a mystery.

Creation scientists, on the other hand, have in the Bible a much better foundation for understanding these things. We know that the Genesis Flood buried many land plants and animals (except those land animals on Noah’s ark). That accounts for most of the fossils and other forms of carbon deep in the earth, such as coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, etc. (9) The fossils are a snapshot of life on Earth the day Noah stepped aboard the ark. Today there is at least 100 times more fossil carbon in the earth’s crust than is in the earth’s biosphere (air, sea, lakes, rivers, soil, plants, and animals). (10) That means the earth’s biosphere before the Flood was teeming with life, filled with vegetation and creatures feeding on it. This, apart from the effects of sin, was the world God called “very good” just after creating it (Genesis 1:31).

Having much more carbon available than today, the pre-Flood biosphere cycled more carbon dioxide to and from its various parts. For example, plants took CO2 out of the air by photosynthesis. Then after dying, the plants returned CO2 back to the air by decaying (respiration of microorganisms). So the carbon-rich pre-Flood atmosphere would have much more CO2, just as minerals such as goethite suggest. The greenhouse effect of the very much higher carbon dioxide levels (15 times current) probably contributed to a warm, relatively uniform climate over the whole earth, just as the fossils show. Warmer oceans provided more moisture to the air, which in turn provided more rain. With more available CO2, water, and warmth, plants thrived. More tropical weather at high latitudes and fewer deserts (if any) meant much more of the land surface was suitable for plant and animal life. God designed the whole system, including the soil, to be rich in carbon and consequently sustaining abundant plant and animal life.

A creationist atmospheric scientist, Dr. Larry Vardiman, once explained to me why the secular experts are so afraid of “climate change”. They fear the atmosphere is unstable because of their theory of the Ice Age (one Ice Age for creationists, many for people misinterpreting carbon-14 dating). Their model, the Milankovitch theory, depends on variations in the earth’s orbit and seasonal tilt of its spin axis. (11) The “push” on the climate from such variations would be weak, which makes secular climatologists think the earth’s climate is unstable, needing only a slight disturbance to “trigger” a disaster. The recent movie, The Day after Tomorrow, (12) takes such a catastrophe as its major premise, plunging the world into simulated Antarctic weather. The experts fear that a somewhat stronger “push”, such as a moderate global CO2 increase, might be enough to cause a climate collapse.
Creationists, however, have received a good understanding of the post-Flood Ice Age from former U.S. Weather Service forecaster and present Ice Age expert Michael Oard. (13) His theory depends on a very powerful “push”, the warming of the oceans by the “fountains of the great deep” during the Genesis Flood. (14) More warmth would cause more moisture from the oceans that would cause more snow in the higher latitudes. More snow in the summer would reflect heat into space, and start buildup of the glaciers. Dust from Flood and post-Flood volcanoes would help cool the earth. The glaciers would persist until the oceans cooled about 700 years later. This theory explains many of the observed features of the Ice Age, such as the existence of temperate, wet, land corridors along the northern coasts of northern Europe and America between the warm sea and the glaciers. (5

The main point is that the earth’s climate appears to be quite stable, not “triggerable”. Instead, it required a very robust and one-time cause, the Genesis Flood, to produce the Ice Age. Adding a little more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere shouldn’t bring a catastrophe.

So we should not fear “global warming”. God created a world with much more carbon dioxide in the air—a lush green world. Such a world was indeed warmer on the average, equators being about the same as now, but poles much warmer. Scripture speaks of a future “period of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). It is ironic that our technology is pumping carbon buried by the Flood back into the earth’s biosphere, perhaps in preparation for a time when the earth will again be like Eden—at least in terms of the climate.


(1) Idso, S. B., et al., Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 20(1):1–10, 1987. “Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a 300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately 30%.” Ironically, the higher CO2 levels also cause plant growth to be optimum at higher temperatures, so many plants will also benefit from higher temperatures if they accompany the higher CO2.
(2) There is a well-established effect of urbanization causing localized heating—a heat island effect—such that weather stations that are situated in such areas show significant rises in temperature that have nothing to do with global warming. Inclusion of such weather data exaggerates estimates of global warming. See Global Warming Petition Project: Summary of peer-reviewed research Figure 15.
(3) There is evidence that major variations in temperature relate to the sun’s activity. See Ref. 2, Figure 3. This is an indirect effect, with an active Sun preventing ionizing cosmic radiation reaching Earth and thus reducing cloud cover—it is not a direct heating effect. See, Svensmark, H., et al., Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proc. Royal Soc. A 463(2078):385–96, 2007. The author explains the effect [url=http://JunkScienceArchive.com/Greenhouse/
influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf]here. [/url]

[/quote]

[Silver_Shiney]

(4) Global Warming Petition Project: Summary of peer-reviewed research, Figure 13.
(5) Computer simulations of what effect CO2 levels will have on temperature are fraught with difficulty because there are so many complicating side-effects, many of which act to counter any increase in global temperature
(6) Grigg, Russell M., Al Gore’s inconvenient errors, 31 October 2007.
(7) Ref 2, Figure 8

[Silver_Shiney]

(8) Yapp, C.J. and Poths, H., Ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures inferred from natural goethites, Nature 355:342–344, 23 January 1992. The authors also cite many other studies supporting their conclusion, showing that Paleozoic samples consistently gave evidence of having been in the presence of high CO2 partial pressures.
(9) Whitcomb, J.C. and Morris, H.M., The Genesis Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1961
(10) Brown, Robert, The interpretation of C-14 dates, Origins 6:30–44, 1979
(11) Oard, Michael J., Astronomical troubles for the astronomical hypothesis of ice ages, Journal of Creation 21(3):19 23, December 2007
(12) Vallorani, Brandon, Movie review: The Day after Tomorrow