|
|
|
|
|
 |
"The world's proved reserves of crude oil are over twenty times greater than they were when such record keeping began over half a century ago. World natural gas reserves are five times greater than they were in the mid 1960s. Coal reserves are four times greater than originally estimated half a century ago and twice as great as all the known oil and gas reserves combined on an energy-equivalent basis." Thus those who wished to place limits on growth by chaining down the fossil fuel Prometheus with the depletion argument have been sorely stymied. The same people are back with a new tack. The new party line is that the burning of fossil fuels is causing a catastrophic heating of the planets' atmosphere. The remedy recommended by the perpetrators of the global warming hoax is not coincidentally the same as was recommended by the depletionists - the deployment of ridiculously impractical alternative energy sources and draconian, state-imposed, conservation policies. Bradley's most useful service is to mine the documents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to point out the contradictions and fallacies within mainstream global warming propaganda. (The IPCC, a joint venture between the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme, is the main source of climate change propaganda. Their most recent comprehensive document: is Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.) In particular, Bradley shows how the mass media synopsis of the IPCC's work is highly misleading. For one thing, when the media speaks of temperature rises of up to 5.8 Celsius by the end of the 21st century they are cherry picking precisely the most extreme scenario out of 245 scenarios laid out by the scientists at the IPCC. For another, when the media quotes the IPCC as identifying temperature increases of around 1 Celsius over the last half century they neglect to mention that this alleged increase is largely a result of an increase in minimum temperatures not maximum temperatures. In other words, it is not the summer days getting hotter so much as it is the winter nights are getting not quite as cold. The ramifications of these winter night changes are negligible and, by the IPCC's own admission, benign. The IPCC predicts most of the warming will continue to occur primarily in high northern latitudes in winter thus extending the precious frost-free season. Basically, they are saying the principal result of "global warming", human-caused or not, is winters in Siberia and Alaska will not be quite as harsh in 2100 as they are now. Preventing this is hardly worth throwing the Western world into a second Great Depression which compliance to the Kyoto Protocol would surely do. Moreover, the confidence and certainty about the "global warming" hypothesis projected by the media and the green politicians does not square with the IPCC's recent statements. The IPCC concedes they are increasingly aware "natural variability" of the Earth's atmosphere plays a fundamental role in climate change. They also acknowledge land-based estimates of past temperature increases do not jive, in a statistically significant way, with more recent (post 1979) weather balloon and satellite data, which record much less warming of the atmosphere. Nor can they explain this difference. The IPCC admits to even greater uncertainty regarding the crucial role of water vapour feedback and cloud formation etc. They also confess great uncertainty on the role aerosols might have on the atmosphere. Contrary to the relentless media hype, the IPCC no longer endorses the thesis that sea levels are rising or the notion that extreme weather events are becoming more common. Basically, the IPCC has had to bow to the heroic and persistent criticism from a large number of uncorrupted and sincere scientists and admit computer models are far too simplistic to predict the future of the climate. The IPCC continues to point to these computer models as some form of proof of potential serious human-caused global warming but to growing numbers within and without the scientific community it increasingly looks like a case of "bias-in-bias-out". There is also the matter of the single ledger accounting done by the "global warmers". They speak only of the potential harms, regardless of how far fetched, and nothing of the benefits a warmer, wetter world, fertilized with additional CO2, will bring. Any green house operator will tell you CO2 is plant food. According to Bradley, optimal plant growth is achieved at CO2 concentrations of 800 to 1,200 parts per million. Currently, atmospheric concentrations are 375 ppm. The Great Fear is that CO2 concentrations may rise to 522 ppm by the end of the 21st century given the observed rise of 1.5 ppm per annum. Aside from whatever debatable impact this increase may have on temperature and precipitation it will have a noticeably positive affect on plant growth. The bad news is humanity is going have to wait until well into the twenty-third century to reach optimal conditions. (CO2 concentrations do not become harmful to human health until the hit around 15,000 ppm and humanity probably will be mining uranium on Pluto before this happens.) (As an aside, many scientists believe the enhanced plant growth will suck up increasing amounts of CO2 hence mitigating whatever potential harm emissions could possibly do. Also, many scientists believe the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the RESULT of global warming NOT the cause, as warmer temperatures, arising from natural factors, compel oceans to give up more of their CO2 store. This is the so-called "coca-cola fizz" effect. In any event, as Bradley is fully aware, the direct relationship of CO2 increases to significant temperature rises is far from established science.) Bradley does not dig into why the mass media is telling lies about the atmosphere, which is just as well because his school of thought is prohibited from speaking about issues of "class" or related internal social struggles. To his credit, Bradley does point out that certain big businesses such as General Electric, Royal Dutch Shell, and British Petroleum are major promoters of global warming lies and beneficiaries of Kyoto-type policies; a fact usually coming as a complete surprise to even the most "educated" street-corner Green-shirt. But this unfortunately is but the epiphenomenal tip of a dangerously thickening political ice-berg. For more intelligence on this point contact www.ecofascism.com By William Kay |
|
|
| Designed by W3Media. Hosted by W3Media |
Review of Bradley's Climate Alarmism Reconsidered
