The Great Climate Change Swindle?

Did anyone watch The Great Climate Swindle from Channel 4, back in March?  It was quite a while ago, but makes for very interesting viewing.  It presents some very serious and alarming holes in the popular climate change theories going around.  Whilst one can argue over the exact scientific credibility of some of the information (even the programme’s website acknowledges these), the basic claims it asserts still show a lot of truth and are more alarming to me than concerns about rising sea levels.

The basic claims it makes are that industrialised sources of C02 (cars, factories, power stations, etc) are insignificant to natural sources, so any attempts to try and combat CO2 is rather pointless in altering climate change.  Secondly, it proposes that CO2 is one of the minor “greenhouse gases”, with water vapour being the worst.  Thirdly, the current excitement about climate change and C02 reduction is politically motivated from a need to reduce dependency on oil and gas reserves in favour of nuclear energy in the ’80s.  Lastly, the current decisions being taken on the basis of reducing C02 emissions will have serious impact on the development of third world nations, in particular Africa, and are likely to ensure that these nations will not be able to develop beyond basic subsistence living.  If this is true, and I personally believe this carries credibility, it is another huge injustice western governments will impose on the 2 billion Africans living in poverty.  In this post, I want to take you through some of these claims to at least hold on to the more credible parts of the programme to say that we shouldn’t limit third world nation’s development based on trying to be environmentally friendly.

So to begin, if you were to list the main contributors of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere, the programme claims that the oceans would appear at the top of the list.  Currently, due to a warming of the oceans, they are releasing stored up dissolved C02 that was absorbed in cooler periods.  Warmer water can hold less CO2 than colder water, so an effect of global warming, not a cause, is that more CO2 is being released into the atmosphere.  It then points to solar activity as the main influencer of climate, but some of the science in this area has recently been called into question.  Nevertheless, the status of the oceans being the number one contributor of CO2 as an effect of global warming seems to remain unchallenged.


Crazy Person?

The second contributor largest contributor is decaying foliage, followed by animals, then volcanoes and then industrialised man-made sources.  To give an indication of size differences, animals produce 150 gigatons of C02 per year, whilst industrial man-made sources give out 6.5 gigatons, a small fraction of the total output.  In fairness to the anti-CO2 lobby, the programme does not go on to try and evaluate how much other man-made influences, such as burning rainforests, the overpopulation of humans breathing out CO2 or changes in livestock levels due to aggressive agricultural methods have had on the environment, but it does at least state clearly than industrialised sources are a minimal contributor.

So then, why is C02 being attacked so much?  The programme here claims that the amount of funding scientific research can get is heavily influenced on whether the claims its trying to prove are in line with the current political aims of the government funding it, over and above how good the science is.  Also, that the more alarming the predictions made by research, the more attention and thus follow up funding it is likely to attract.  In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher wanted to stop industry being dependent on coal and oil following the miner’s strike.  She allegedly actively supported scientists whose research supported man-made CO2 having a strong influence on climate change.  Looking at the current political climate (no pun intended), the funders of research today might also be predisposed to favour research that would reduce a country’s dependency on oil and gas from nations (especially the Middle East and Russia).

The extent of truth behind politically motivated scientific research is one for the conspiracy theorists.  But there is an entire industry being built on this momentum and is further fuelling the urgency.  The industry I work in is being driven by the Title 24 regulations in California requiring the reduction of total energy consumption and I have a business riding on people investing in this.  The “environmental correspondents” in the media will of course have a bias to maintain their job, as will all the other companies out there trying to make money out of an opportunity.

Now in general, I support a reduction in energy usage and industries becoming more environmental.   For me, the Bible places a call on us to be stewards of this planet and to look after what God has created and given us authority over.  But the most worrying part for me is the increasing call within environmental campaigners to stop the third world from using their natural resources to fuel development and industry in their nations, and instead become reliant on sustainable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power.

Wind and solar are inherently unreliable, expensive and insufficient, even for western countries.  Whilst they may be able to supplement other sources or power a small number of lights or appliances, they are not appropriate for powering large industrial plants, such as steel mills or an advanced train infrastructure, which need guaranteed power.  For Africa to pull itself out of a subsistence level of living, it will need large and reliable sources of energy and electricity to do that.  A simple example: respiratory disease due to smoke inhalation from burning home wood fires, used for cooking and heating, is a major killer in Africa that could be wiped out with cheap, affordable electricity.



It has reserves of coal and oil, which it could to bring industry and development and raise the standard of living for its people, but this is now under threat from campaigners who are instead promoting alternative energies, backed by a whole host of western companies who’ve invested in these new technologies.

But, if environmentalists claim that the industrialisation of third world nations will be bad for the environment, when global industrial C02 accounts for less than 5% of the total CO2 output and the science behind CO2 having any effect on the climate is also seriously questionable, then this is a huge crime against the 2 billion people in Africa who’s lived will be compromised by lack of access to electricity.

Some claim in face of the scientific criticism of current climate theories that we should restrict C02 as a “precautionary measure”.  But whilst much research has been done into the risk of increased CO2, not much has been done into the risks of not increasing CO2 for third world nations.

I feel that as developed nations, we owe it to the environment to be responsible in our energy usage and that reducing the amount we impact the earth in terms of resources and also pollution (especially not just in CO2 emissions but other more toxic areas as well) is always going to be a good thing.  But I feel that if people want to try and limit the development of a people because of some guilt or misplaced and unproven passion, this is a much worse crime.  More good science is needed in this area, but until that is there, we should at least allow the third world to use what it has to the fullest and for the good of the people, passing on lessons we’ve learned along the way.  Politicians need to be lobbied to ensure that good science is funded and that right decisions on third world development is taken, considering not just the impact of doing something, but the impact of not doing something.  I would really encourage everyone to look into this and decide for themselves.
Read the original story by stoney