Targeting the fundamentalist Church of Global Warming
There are growing signs of a backlash against the fundamentalist Church of Global Warming.
The number of scientists stepping forward to publicly question the basic beliefs of Global Warmers is growing. Interestingly, some of these scientists have been listed by the United Nations as supporting the beliefs of Global Warmers.
Global Warmers hate heritics who are simply people who wont blindly accept the new religion
It may not be long before politicians find it more convenient to recant their current Global Warming beliefs and join the growing band of heretics who call for a reasoned debate, based on facts rather than propaganda.
This is a very complex subject and far too serious to be distorted by propaganda.
Propaganda is a serious risk to our health
The news media and broadcasters have thus far painted a very false picture, loosely based around a few facts. The popular perception, created by the propaganda is that all temperatures are rising at an increasing rate, at every point on the planet, and at every level of the atmosphere.
A growing number of scientists are now pointing out that this is inaccurate. They state that surface temperatures in many parts of the world are rising and have been rising for several hundred years. However, they point out that sampling of atmospheric temperatures, at various altitudes, show little or no sign of increasing and some indication that temperatures are falling.
Weather balloon data questions fundamental claims
If these respected scientists are correct in their assertions, the fundamental basis of the Global Warmers’ beliefs, that temperatures are rising due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere, is wrong. Upper atmosphere temperature monitoring, together with solar flare trends, appears to more closely support the earlier belief that Global Cooling is taking place and that the Earth is headed for a new Ice Age.
Al Gore, a High Priest of Global Warming
The basis of the propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is that there is a direct relationship between global temperature changes and the release of carbon gas into the upper atmosphere. This simple statement does appear to be widely held by scientists. However, these same scientists take this basic theory and come with wildly different conclusions. Failed US Presidential candidate, Al Gore, made the claim in the propaganda film that this relationship proved beyond all doubt that global warming and green house gas combine to destroy all life on the planet.
Scientists who have studied the subject for many years are pointing out that this relationship only proves that carbon levels follow, rather than lead, global temperature changes. Some claim that this proves only that rising temperature encourages carbon gases to boil off and that the rise in carbon is due to the release of carbon stored in the soil and oceans during colder periods. Others claim that the graphs only prove that temperatures and carbon levels fluctuate naturally, over very long cycles of hundreds and thousands of years, in direct response to changes in solar radiation levels. Both groups agree that the graphs do not support another fundamental claim of Global Warmers that temperatures can be reduced, by reducing carbon levels in the atmosphere. They also agree that, as there is clear evidence of temperature and carbon changes stretching back into pre-history, man makes only a very tiny impact, so insignificant that changes in human output of carbon gases will have no measurable effect on changes.
Global Warmers have created a whole new industry. This industry has a vested financial interest in developing its marketing strategies to maximise profits. The result is that some very dishonest claims are being made for simple economic advantage.
One example, from many, is the way in which wind turbines are promoted. The wind is free, and a sustainable resource. Unfortunately, it is seriously unpredictable and some parts of the world experience wind patterns that do not make wind turbines viable. There is strong evidence that the construction of very large wind turbine farms changes wind patterns, in much the same way that the creation of large fields for mechanised farming led to an increase in average wind speeds, with a consequent erosion of soil and reduction in soil fertility.
Most published claims from companies selling wind turbines, or building turbine farms as power generators, grossly distort key figures, such as average wind speeds. A common deliberate failing is to claim a power generation level that can only be sustained at periods of exceptionally high wind speed. When an average for the year is used, the power generation falls significantly. In some cases this makes the difference between a positive gain and a negative gain, where the energy required to build, erect, and maintain the wind turbines and cable infrastructure is greater than the energy produced through power generation by the turbines.
Countries, where large wind turbines have been in operation for a number of years, have identified a range of disadvantages. A common problem has been the threat to birds. Many of the best locations for wind turbines, in terms of average wind speeds and connection to existing distribution infrastructure, have been in the path of bird migration routes. This has resulted both in significant bird death and to changes in migration pattern that have had an adverse effect on the populations of particular species.
Onshore wind farms create a great deal of pollution
Noise pollution from wind turbines is a major issue, one reason why local residents rise up in objection to plans for new wind farms onshore. This is understandable because residents close to existing farms have discovered the hard way that a large wind turbine is not just a threat to visual amenity. Residents find that they suffer sleep disorder and stress, often including mental illness, because of the considerable and continuing noise pollution. Economically, these residents have also found that their homes are no longer attractive to buyers and are now virtually worthless. For these people, their life savings have been lost without any form of compensation. Given these conditions, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude is entirely understandable. Of course one attraction of wind farms has been that most wind generators will be located many miles away and they see only advantages. The attraction reduces when a wind farm is erected close to an urban area, or in the situation where taxes have to rise to provide money for compensation and health care of those blighted by onshore wind turbines.
Dave Cameron chasing votes
Dave Cameron, one British politician leaping enthusiastically on a bandwagon he hopes will produce votes, is proposing to fit a wind generator to his London home. It is no surprise that local residents have objected to what they see as a polluting eyesore. Those who back up their emotional reaction with factual research will find that the economics of this type of wind generator do not add up and that any widespread adoption of these yuppie windmills will make matters far worse.
One of the smaller offshore wind farms waiting for the wind
The wind turbine industry has responded to the situation by moving their priorities to building offshore wind farms. This dramatically reduces opposition because the turbines are too far away from housing to present a direct threat to people. It does not reduce the threat to wild life because the coastal regions are frequently the places where wild life has been displaced to by urban development. There will also be an effect on tidal flows and coastal erosion because the turbine masts in large offshore wind farms will be located on sandbanks, or in shallows, where they will encourage a build up of sand and gravel. This will change natural beach nourishment patterns and lead to changes in coastal erosion patterns.
The economics of offshore wind farms is even more marginal than for many onshore farms. The obvious extra cost is introduced by the need to provide additional distribution cabling and to employ waterproof cables that run on the seabed to shore. However, this is really a minor part of the extra cost. Building offshore can prove to be horribly expensive because of the need to move materials to site in hostile conditions by boat. This problem continues through the life of the wind farm because all maintenance personnel must be taken out by boat and will be unable to make the trip during storms, when damage is most likely.
The final point about wind farms that is never mentioned in the marketing communications of supply and generation companies is the threat offshore farms pose to shipping and boats of any size. The British Government has funded QinetiQ, a leading defence research organization, to look at ways that stealth technology can be employed in the design and production of turbine blades. This is considered essential because of the radar pollution generated by offshore wind farms.
Costly military stealth technology is one approach to reducing pollution from wind turbines
This pollution has the potential to increase marine disasters. Should this involve the collision of fully laden oil tankers, the subsequent ecological disaster could cancel out any benefits produced by offshore wind farms in the marine region for years.
When all of these inconvenient facts are taken into consideration, the only conclusion is that there must be less propaganda and more research before we end up creating a far worse problem through wilful ignorance by Global Warmers. There is now a very real danger that the backlash against the Global Warming Extremists will result in real problems not being dealt with.