by Dr MICHAEL SIMPSON PhD
SCIENCE and the scientific method is a wonderful way of objectively testing theories and discovering facts about the real world. I should know as I did my PhD in Physical Chemistry. Facts have emerged which dismiss the distant scary futures predicted by climate models. The scariest scenarios are based on RCP8.5 (representative concentration pathways) with the greenhouse gas theory built into the models. The RCP8.5 scenario would require the world to burn 5 times the amount of coal per annum than we currently burn. That scenario is not credible.
I have worked with many of the so called ‘greenhouse gases’ before they were called ‘greenhouse gases’ and many are in fact liquids at room temperature (e.g. chlorofluoro hydrocarbons) and they did not display any unusual physical or chemical properties. They certainly did not get warmer than the ambient temperature in the laboratory, so I always wondered where this greenhouse gas scare came from.
It turns out it comes from faulty climate models which have been heavily criticised for being unable to forecast our present climate conditions from a previous starting point (called ‘hindcasting’) and which use circular reasoning by assuming the (proven wrong) greenhouse gas theory is at work with carbon dioxide as the main culprit, assisted by the much stronger effect of water vapour. These climate models ignore over 200 years of physics looking at solar cycles of varying lengths, which are completely natural. The cyclic nature of climate was well known in ancient China circa 3200BC and these cycles affect weather conditions in a predictable way. Noting that climate is the average of weather conditions over a 30 year period, physicists have been unable to reproduce the greenhouse effect in laboratory experiments and they conclude that it is falsified and does not exist.
The IPCC stopped calling their forecasts a ‘climate forecast’ after criticism and they are now called ‘projections’ which perhaps has less veracity than a real forecast as it is simply a mathematical model run on a computer that has been allowed to generate output with no physical meaning for any potential incarnation in the distant future. It is like running a cash flow forecast for a business over the next 80 or 100 years and setting your corporate strategy based on that.Many things can happen in 80 or 100 years and if there is no physical mechanism related to carbon dioxide and the climate then it simply won’t happen. The models are wrong.
The so called ‘Climate Emergency’ and policies to tackle it are all based on these faulty mathematical models. Things are not what we are told, nor will they be far into the future. Things are not getting worse. That’s right things are getting better! Scientific investigation looking at measurable facts tells us that storms and hurricanes are fewer and less severe, droughts are fewer, floods are not increasing, and forest fires are fewer and less severe. NASA photos tell us that there has been a greening of Earth in recent decades and the OECD and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation tell us that food production has increased, benefitting from slightly increased temperatures since the Little Ice Age and of course, increased fertilisation from slightly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The 415ppm of carbon dioxide in air is a trace gas which is at a much lower concentration than the trace gas Argon (at ~1% which is 10,000ppm). If things are getting better (e.g. fewer hurricanes and their intensity is getting less severe) and carbon dioxide concentration is increasing then there is a negative correlation between the two and not a positive one as the activists and politicians would have us believe. The fact is that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide to seriously influence the climate, so why are we being told there is a ‘Climate Emergency’ and to get away from cheap, plentiful fuels which we have learned to burn cleanly?
All evidence is in the public domain and easily accessed via web sites for NASA, NOAA, GISS and via other groups busy analysing the data. Thank goodness there are think tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK (https://www.thegwpf.org), the Heartland Institute in the USA (https://www.heartland.org/topics/climate-change), the Science and Public Policy Institute (www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org) looking critically at the data and coming to broadly similar conclusions in their publications. The data and evidence tell us that there is no climate emergency.500 scientists have written to the United Nations explaining this (https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/), again declaring that there is no climate emergency. Some 90 Italian scientists wrote in similar vein to the Italian government yet the ‘Climate Emergency’ deception continues (Search: 90 Italian Scientists).
What happened to following the science? Whose science were they following? It was rhetoric and of no serious value in furthering debate on such a complicated matter where the proposed solutions are excruciatingly expensive (in the trillions of £s) and will achieve nothing for the future, but plenty for their bank balances.
There are numerous books often with ‘False Alarm’ and ‘Fraud’ in the title which correctly describe our current position on climate. That is, we are not facing any sort of catastrophe or crisis and there never was a ‘climate emergency’. In fact we are living in a period of time which is highly beneficial and to make claims to the contrary is fraudulent and criminal.
So why is it necessary to have a Climate Change Act or expensive proposals to fight the non-existent ‘Climate Emergency’? Why the stampede towards ‘Net Zero’ carbon dioxide emissions by all political parties? The bulk of the population do not believe in a ‘Climate Emergency’ and many scientists have said there is no emergency. Farmers in my area are even less convinced since carbon dioxide is the fundamental basis of the entire food supply chain and most arable farms will have net negative emissions (i.e. they will absorb carbon dioxide to make our food).The highly expensive remedies for this non-existent emergency are bad news for the consumer, businesses and the economy and will cost households and businesses dearly. The proposals to build more expensive intermittent and variable renewables such as wind turbines and solar panels because they are claimed to be ‘low carbon’ sources of energy will destabilise the electricity grid system and lead to blackouts. An economy relying heavily on information technology which requires electricity is extremely vulnerable to blackouts. Recovery from blackouts is not easy with so-called renewable energy and if the amount of renewable energy on the grid increases significantly it may prove impossible to restart the grid without conventional fuel energy generation.
One acquaintance was telling me that when the power goes off, which it has a couple of times quite recently, so does their water supply. In a future with heavy reliance on renewables, if the wind does not blow strongly enough to generate electricity we could be facing serious problems with power cuts. The so-called ‘Smart Meters’ can be used to turn off your electricity supply when there is insufficient energy generated to maintain frequency and voltage on the grid. He also noted that in the winter and summer in the UK the wind often does not blow strongly enough to generate energy for weeks at a time and solar panels generate little or no energy in winter and none in the dark.
So what we now see is the perfect storm of political lying and fake news. The politicians are hardly qualified to speak of anything to do with science and most politicians have no clue about energy generation. Worse is that government now does not have access to impartial experts as it closed the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) research centres in the early 1990s and ended the slow death of the CEGB in 2001 (Central Electricity Generating Board (Dissolution) Order 2001). A very unhappy 20th anniversary.
Fact checking by any reasonably competent person can establish that the idea of a ‘Climate Emergency’ is a deception of the most egregious and dangerous kind. Yet all political parties have signed up to it to ‘save the planet’. A noble cause perhaps, but to save it from what exactly? The idea that in 80 or 100 years’ time there will be a small increase in temperature and fewer storms and hurricanes constitutes a ‘Climate Emergency’ is risible. It is even less credible when we realise there has been a statistically significant pause in the rise in average temperatures for over 20 years. Maybe we need to save the Earth from politicians, activists and the fake news media.
Morano, M. (2021) “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal is even worse than you think”, Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C. ISBN: 978-1-68451-085-6.Dr Michael Simpson has PhD in Physical Chemistry and has worked in chemistry, physics, materials science and materials engineering departments in universities. In his early career he worked at several micro-electronics companies and helped to develop radar systems in the mid-1980s and has signed the Official Secrets Act for some of his earlier work. He currently teaches production and operations management
The Light Newspaper (Ireland)