Friday, 16 October 2015

A Celebration of Carbon Dioxide

The below is required reading for anyone who thinks they know anything about climate change or global warming or the need for de-carbonisation (It urgently needs to be taught in schools)

Health Warning: if your knowledge about climate change comes from solely reading The Irish Times, you may be in for a nasty shock.

It was written by a founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.


  1. Carbon Dioxide is the first contribution a new born mammal makes to the environment. It's essential for plant growth and therefore for food. Human bodies could not exist without carbon. Carbon was made dying stars. It is an essential alloying element in steel enabling it to be heat treated, hardened and toughened. Oxygen needs no explanation. Carbon Dioxide is a by product of fermentation and is lovely in soft drinks to cut the thirst. It's an essential gas.

  2. The 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on Thursday last week by Patrick Moore is controversial in that he contends that we should promote production of carbon dioxide rather than trying to reduce it.
    This of course flies in the face of full order books for all those major wind turbine manufacturers such as GE, Siemens, Vestas and Gamesa. Manufacturers who have lots of employees who vote in general elections. Manufacturers who have deep pockets to fund political re-election campaigns.
    The rationale in Europe has rapidly adapted to align policy with commercial outcomes. First we had 'Global Warming', and when temperatures failed to behave it morphed into 'Climate Change'. The latest label is 'Decarbonisation', which is just a blatent fig leaf to promote sales of electrical gadgets. We love gadgets. Can't get enough of them.
    And we just adore 'free'. Free renewable energy, free smartphones (with a 2 year contract), free cloud storage of all our thousands of high-resolution photos. All stored in energy-hungry data centres, that are massively increasing our energy consumption that we purport to reduce. So that our behaviour can be analysed, and we can be exposed to targetted advertising, to (wait for it), buy more lovely gadgets.
    See what you think - does the case made by Patrick Moore hold water? For that matter, does the IPCC case hold water? What would be a good outcome from the Paris climate summit?

  3. There was always conventional orthodoxy and always someone to challenge it. Religion was a very persistent example and still is, but challenging religious beliefs can be very traumatic, very personal and deeply sensitive for all concerned. Moreover nothing can be proved and it does not damage the environment in any event. The Global warming, co2 renewable energy issue, is not based on science, but on conventional orthodoxy too. It is a new kid on the block, not so personal, traumatic or sensitive and therefore fair game for challengers. Itfthe theory is wrong, then the reality could be 1) that co2 is harmful above certain amounts, or 2) it makes no difference or 3) it is good. If the claims being made about wind energy are in accurate, then the reality could be 1) that wind works better than claimed, 2) works worst than claimed, 3) makes no difference or 4)causes more co2 to be released. I have taken to suggesting that wind farms are net consumers of electricity and I can see that co2 is good for plant life. Why have scientists and engineers never came up with a mathematical way to measure the contribution of wind energy on the grid system? It appears to be unique in that respect. The fact is that there is no proper science on the effects of co2. Greens claim oil money corrupts governments into supporting fuel consumption, why then would huge amounts of state and renewable energy industry money not corrupt scientists? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.