How did I goof? The Progressive Conservatives held their Policy Convention in late September. I knew it was coming. I had planned for months to attend. I thought long about the policy submissions that I would make. Came the Convention and I had done nothing. Zilch.
What would I have submitted? Any regular reader of RVN knows that I have written several times about the absurdities of the hype that surrounds us about the “coming climate crisis” that will supposedly result from our emissions of carbon dioxide gas. For those who may have missed those columns, the point that I was making was that CO2 has virtually no effect on temperature.
Here’s a thumbnail sketch of the science (I’d be happy to give a more detailed talk on the subject to any interested group). Most of the effect on temperature of CO2 comes from the first small amount of the gas. Successive amounts have progressively less effect (a logarithmic relationship). Yet the climate alarmists go on and on about CO2 being a “greenhouse gas” that will bring disaster through increased warming (two degrees…..or four degrees…..or nine degrees; the number varies with the way the wind is blowing, it seems) if it increases much from its present 385 molecules out of every million.
We have to keep in mind that the so-called “greenhouse” effect applies only to heat transferred by thermal radiation, and that is only part of the story.
If, for the moment, we stick only to the “greenhouse effect” that the alarmists prattle on about all the time, the fact is that the most important “greenhouse gas”, by far, is plain old water. There is vastly more of it in the atmosphere, so it swamps any radiation effects of CO2.
The rest of the water story involves vapor and clouds. Clouds are easy to understand. Increased incoming radiation energy evaporates more water which forms more clouds which then shade the earth from more incoming radiation from the sun. Anyone who has spent time in the tropics is familiar with the daily routine of clear mornings, clouds forming during the afternoon, and a later rainfall that cools things down. Water acts like a thermostat to regulate the temperature.
As for the water vapor, this is a reference to the evapo-convection effect. That’s the scientific description of the way that radiation from the sun evaporates water, transferring the energy to the water. The water then rises high into the atmosphere and its heat goes two ways. Air currents carry heat north and south over the globe, toward the poles. The rest of the heat energy is radiated into space. The result of all this is a marvellous balance between incoming solar energy and reradiation of energy back into space. And it keeps our temperatures within a remarkably small range.
Poor old Al Gore seems to think that radiation is all of the climate story. He appears woefully ignorant of the wondrous effect of water. Think of that if you ever watch his science-fiction “An Inconvenient Truth”. And keep in mind that the world stopped warming ten years ago. There is no global warming.
Now, all of this seems to be an argument among academics that isn’t going to affect us “ordinary folks”. Unfortunately…..there is much more to the story.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established under United Nations auspices to study climate. Unfortunately, their task was not to determine WHAT influences affect climate. No, they were told to show how MAN (that’s us) IS CAUSING the climate to warm.
The IPCC has put out four reports, each more voluminous than the one before. So far, so good. The problems come when one learns the details…..the reality. The reality is that the small coterie of IPCC lead authors cherry picked the many reports on climate research that they received. They chose only ones that favored their view that Man is causing “global warming”, and featured their own writings, a scientific no-no. They
turned a blind eye to any of the many reports and comments that opposed their preconceived notions. The most important part of the last IPCC reports was produced by only 67 people, most of them appointed by their governments because their biassed viewpoint suited their government. (I have large numbers of reports on the shenanigans of the IPCC. To get an idea of what went on behind the scenes, Google “ipcc errors” and start reading the first 15 pages.)
Again, this could be only an academic tempest in a teapot, but the problem is that governments have adopted the IPCC reports as wholly reliable. After all, it is sponsored by the UN….. Those accepting the IPCC message include the present Liberal government of New Brunswick. To read about their views, Google “nb climate change action plan” (CCAP). Among other things, note that water is never considered as a “greenhouse gas”. But that is only one of the many flaws. The CCAP is full of assertions that are contrary to reality, assertions that I or any other informed person could refute.
It is quickly obvious that no one within the government or the department that produced this typical bureaucratic dog’s dinner (complete with pretty color illustrations) has spent a moment reading anything other than the Summary for Policymakers. The Summary accompanied the full IPCC report and was prepared without any scientific guidance. It exaggerates the already-exaggerated main reports. The result is that the NB government and its advisors show themselves to be ignorant of the realities of the complexity of climate. And that leads to the threat that they will cost us citizens huge sums of money to no useful purpose.
The government has built a grand edifice on a foundation of quicksand. Since the CCAP is part of government policy, it is very doubtful that it will ever be changed by the present Liberal governing party. (Look at their reluctance to change their minds about selling NB Power, teaching French in schools, operation of ferries on the St. John River, and their antagonzing of our irreplaceable doctors.) So, I had thought that the only hope for sane climate policy in this province could come through the NB Progressive Conservative Party. Hence my plan to talk to the policy convention, to warn them of the nonsense that is now government policy, to warn them to disregard the alarmism that appears daily in the media (newspapers, the once-credible CBC, etc., etc.) regarding “climate change”, and to persuade them to oppose measures that would do nothing for climate but which would reduce our standard of living or even wreck our economy.
I didn’t attend the convention, and I have been kicking myself ever since. I can only hope that I will be able to urge the PC Party toward a realistic approach to climate by articles like this. A realistic approach is basically to do nothing to force companies and us to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the name of saving the world. That would accomplish nothing except give us misery.
