Global Warming – Facts Trump Opinions
Politics / Climate Change Jun 30, 2007 - 08:43 PMBy: Brian_Bloom
The two previous articles which I wrote on the subject of Global Warming were seriously flawed in their science. As a result, I received a wave of emails.
If I offended anyone by having the temerity to talk about a subject in which I am clearly inadequate in my knowledge, I apologise. However, there was a method in my madness – as the following will hopefully reveal:
Amongst the wave of emails there were many sensible responses, and amongst the sensible responses, three stood out. All three were from experts in their fields of Chemistry, Geophysics and Physics. These three men are decent, honest and humble human beings. They took the trouble to open dialogue with me. Two are teachers/professors.
One sent the Wikipedia links below, which are very helpful. They put many of the Global Warming arguments to bed. They also highlight where I was incorrect in my reasoning due to my inadequate knowledge of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
However, (there always is a however)
If the information in these links is all true then:
1. Why are the surfaces of Mars and Venus also warming – where there is no human population?
2. Why did one of the most senior statisticians in the USA publicly announce that the IPCC model that links CO2 emissions to Global Warming is flawed?
3. Why did 45 Billion tons of additional snow deposit on the Eastern Antarctic shelf in the 11 years to 2003?
4. Why did the number of electricity blackouts suddenly jump across the USA because of blizzards between December 2006 and March 2007? (4 million homes went without power. Certainly not a record, but a jump nevertheless)
5. Why was April 2007 the coldest April in 113 Years in the USA?
6. Why are the experts disagreeing amongst themselves on some fundamental issues? (In particular the wide range of opinions on sea levels)
7. If it's so damned obvious that CO2 is causing a warming of our planet, why did the USA and Australia not ratify the Kyoto Protocols and why are the politicians even thinking about Carbon Emission trading? (To argue “Oil and Coal Industry conspiracy” is to assume that our politicians are too dumb to put 2 and 2 together. To argue that “it would be detrimental to the economy” would be like arguing that “we understand that mainline drugs can kill you, but if we take them away the patient will suffer terribly when he goes into withdrawal”. The politicians may be twisted, warped, amoral and even corruptly dishonest egomaniacs – but they are certainly not stupid. In their personal capacities, they and their families are also at risk).
8. Finally, who is managing the global scientific process so that the scientists can co-ordinate what they are doing and speak with a unified voice? (Given the involvement of the politicians, the IPCC does not represent a credible unified voice. There is a groundswell of “opinion” and “suspicion” that the scientists are saying what the politicians want them to say because their Research Grants are dependent on their compliance. The IPCC structure seems fraught with Conflicts of Interest)
With the above in mind, and without a common sense explanation that will reconcile these highly significant anomalies with the Greenhouse Gas argument, the credibility of the Greenhouse Gas argument is severely weakened. It is these anomalies which are causing confusion amongst ordinary people – of which I am one.
I'm a simple minded fellow: The polar caps on Mars are melting at the same time as those on Earth are melting. Something is seriously wrong with the arguments of the Global Warming protagonists, and shouting louder that “we are right and anyone who doesn't agree with us is wrong” doesn't cut it. The questions in 1-7 demand to be answered sensibly – which is precisely why I stuck my neck out to write those inflammatory articles.
I have put these same questions to the three experts. One (the geophysicist) is in the Global Warming Camp. The other two (the Physicist and the Chemist) are in the camp which is focussing on questions 1-7.
I have asked all three to help answer these questions. If answers are forthcoming, they will be published in my fourth (and final) article on this subject; subject to editorial unanimity amongst the three experts. It may take a while.
For those who may not be aware of it, I am 60 years old and close to retirement age. I have no interest in, nor need for “glory”. In my professional life I am – amongst other things – a “problem solver” in business matters. One way of getting quick answers is to offer a view. If the view is wrong, it's a fair bet that someone in the audience will stick up his hand to set you straight. The more highly charged the emotional atmosphere, the louder and more aggressive will be the response. A wave of fifty or so emails was an extraordinarily loud response. Global Warming is a very emotive subject. People are seriously concerned.
If there are any politicians out there who may be reading this, then pay attention please ! The time for gamed playing and political points scoring has passed.
As it happens, I believe there are solutions. In my capacity as a trained Venture Capitalist I have identified three non fossil fuel energy technologies which are not yet on the market, and which warrant serious investigation. However, because of a phenomenon known to Venture Capitalists as the “not invented here” syndrome; and because I am concerned that these (possible) solutions may become political footballs, I have chosen to write a novel. The logic behind the novel is to bypass the dysfunctional political process and to communicate the (possible) solutions directly to the public – who will manage upwards if they become convinced regarding what is described therein.
The “not invented here” syndrome reflects a propensity by experts in their field to feel the necessity to destroy the credibility of any new technology on the basis that “if this idea is so great, why has no-one thought about it before? Why isn't it already on the market? The argument goes something like this: “Because it is not yet accepted, therefore it must be flawed. As an expert in my field, I cannot take the chance that my reputation will be destroyed. It will therefore be safer for me personally to look for reasons why this new technology will fail”.
Sometime the so-called Independent Experts are right, sometimes they are wrong. But this motivating rationale for their logic typically has more to do with precious ego than with objective science.
The three technologies deserve to be examined with an open mind. One of them seems to have the propensity to cut Greenhouse Gas emissions by up to 25% across the planet within a decade – and with little negative impact on the world economy. Arguably, introducing this particular technology may even be economically stimulative.
Will this be a good thing or a bad thing? It will certainly not help the plant life on our planet. Nor will it help the ozone layer. The plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. UV rays from the sun convert this oxygen to ozone. Maybe, by cutting CO2 emission by 25% we will destroy life on Earth. I have no idea. And neither, it seems to me, do our scientists. We cannot just rush in with canned solutions here. What is required is a co-ordinated approach that is free of hidden agendas and conflicts of interest – see point #8 above.
By Brian Bloom
www.beyondneanderthal.com
Since 1987, when Brian Bloom became involved in the Venture Capital Industry, he has been constantly on the lookout for alternative energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. He has recently completed the manuscript of a novel entitled Beyond Neanderthal which he is targeting to publish within six to nine months.
The novel has been drafted on three levels: As a vehicle for communication it tells the light hearted, romantic story of four heroes in search of alternative energy technologies which can fully replace Neanderthal Fire. On that level, its storyline and language have been crafted to be understood and enjoyed by everyone with a high school education. The second level of the novel explores the intricacies of the processes involved and stimulates thinking about their development. None of the three new energy technologies which it introduces is yet on commercial radar. Gold, the element , (Au) will power one of them. On the third level, it examines why these technologies have not yet been commercialised. The answer: We've got our priorities wrong.
Beyond Neanderthal also provides a roughly quantified strategic plan to commercialise at least two of these technologies within a decade – across the planet. In context of our incorrect priorities, this cannot be achieved by Private Enterprise. Tragically, Governments will not act unless there is pressure from voters. It is therefore necessary to generate a juggernaut tidal wave of that pressure. The cost will be ‘peppercorn' relative to what is being currently considered by some Governments. Together, these three technologies have the power to lift humanity to a new level of evolution. Within a decade, Carbon emissions will plummet but, as you will discover, they are an irrelevancy. Please register your interest to acquire a copy of this novel at www.beyondneanderthal.com . Please also inform all your friends and associates. The more people who read the novel, the greater will be the pressure for Governments to act.
Brian Bloom Archive |
© 2005-2012 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
Comments
Post Comment (Moderated)