Sunday, November 27, 2005


(From France)


Below is an amusing email from Andrew Nimmo (Space Development Council secretary -- to Benny Peiser in which he also advances reasons to be skeptical about the "fossil" origin of oil:


If Jerome Corsi or anyone else is really interested in the "fountain of youth" as far as oil is concerned, I can tell you exactly where it is. Right above your heads in the sky. There's oil galore up there! A number of asteroids are what is called 'carbonaceous chondrites' and back in the 70s as I recall, a number of these were spectro-analysed. Virtually all of them turned out to be partially made up of what was called "oil-like sludge". On average, 10% of every carbonaceous chondrite appeared to be made up of this - and the vast majority of all of the thousands of relatively large asteroids so far discovered are carbonaceous chondrites. Should our planet really ever run short of oil, I guess the oil companies could probably afford to go up there and import some, but it would almost certainly turn out to be very politically incorrect to do so. Do the 'fossil-fuel' folk really think our asteroids once teemed with life? Personally I don't, but I do very much suspect the oil off Mexico's shore probably came down with the dinosaur-killer itself. No wonder there were world-wide fires!


Below is the summary from Science of one of their latest articles:

"Assessing the likely affects of global climate change remains a high priority for all nations. Schroeter et al. (p. 1333, published online 27 October) show how the pattern of Europe's vulnerability to global changes is likely to change in the 21st century caused by the decreased supply of ecosystem services such as plant growth, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water, and soil fertility. They apply four climate models to Europe and combine them with socioeconomic scenarios to project the evolution of a range of ecosystem services for the coming century, ranging from carbon sequestration to freshwater provisioning and biodiversity. The loss of these services is likely to be accentuated particularly in the Mediterranean and in mountainous regions.


Again I await expert comment on this study but to assume that plant growth is going to be less, that carbon sequestration is going to be less, that significant biodiversity is going to be less, that water will be scarcer and soil fertility is going to be less must be just about the biggest string of dubious assumptions I have ever encountered. It sounds more like the Apostles Creed than science. I won't endeavour to refute each assumption in detail but just two notes:

CO2 is the major plant food so if CO2 concentrations DO increase, that should FERTILIZE plants and lead to MORE plant growth, not less. And the modern-day availablity of "artificial" fertilizers should ensure that we can have whatever level of soil fertilty we wish. In the Western world, we no longer rely on shit for fertilizer.


This blog is mainly a collection of articles from other people about environmental issues rather than a venue in which I offer original analyses of anything so my comments on the Times article yesterday (see immediately below) were just a few preliminary thoughts. I am sure that far more expert critiques than mine will eventually emerge and I am pretty sure that I will hear of them when they do. Given the great skepticism about environmental journalism that past experience engenders, however, I have taken a very brief glance at the sources on which the Times article relied. I have not read the original journal articles in full but the summary of them offered in the journal where they were published suggests that the Greenies are being as dishonest in this matter as they are in so many others.

What I reproduce below are three summaries. The first is the summary of the articles on atmospheric composition by Siegenthaler et al and by Spahni et al. I then present the summary of a "Perspective" on those articles by Brook. And it is that "Perspective" which mostly seems to have guided the science journalist in The Times. Thirdly, I present the summary of the article about sea-levels by Miller et al. which The Times also referred to. As far as I can see at the moment, there seems to be a large mismatch between the original scientific reports and what has been said about them:

"Air trapped in glacial ice contains the only reliable direct record of atmospheric composition before scientific sampling began in the 18th century. Since 1997, the oldest ice available for analysis was that from the Vostok, Antarctica, ice core, which extends back to 420,000 years ago and covers four complete glacial cycles. A new ice core from the EPICA Dome C site in Antarctica now extends back to an age of 740,000 years or more. Two reports present data on the composition of the atmosphere between 400,000 and 650,000 years ago, an interval soon after glacial cycles switched from a dominantly 41,000-year period to the dominantly 100,000-year period that occurs today (see the Perspective by Brook). Siegenthaler et al. (p. 1313) present measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the most important trace greenhouse gas, and show how its concentration varied during a much more narrow range than it did during the past 400,000 years. Spahni et al. (p. 1317; see the cover) present parallel measurements for two other important trace greenhouse gases, CH4 and N2O. As is the case for CO2, CH4 varied between much more narrow bounds during that time, although N2O varied just as much as it did in the nearly half-million years since then. These data will be keys to understanding how the carbon cycle has operated since the middle of the Pleistocene epoch".


"Our knowledge of long-term human effects on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere comes from air trapped in ice cores taken from polar ice sheets. These ice core samples allow researchers to place modern changes in the context of natural variations over hundreds of thousands of years. In his Perspective, Brook discusses results reported in the same issue by Siegenthaler et al. and by Spahni et al. based on new samples obtained by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). The new long records of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide from EPICA extend the window on greenhouse gas levels to 650,000 years. The results confirm that the modern atmosphere is highly anomalous and reinforce the view that greenhouse gases and climate are intimately related."


"Changes in sea level have exerted a powerful influence on climate, ocean chemistry, the evolution of terrestrial and marine organisms, and the geology of continents and the sea floor. These changes can be caused by the growth and decay of ice sheets, increases and decreases in the volume of water stored in lakes and groundwater, variations in ocean basin volume, and the thermal expansion and contraction of seawater. Miller et al. (p. 1293) review how sea level has changed during the past 543 million years, the Phanerozoic Eon, and concentrate on variations that occur on time scales of tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. They discuss the mechanisms that were responsible for producing those changes."


So a study of "the composition of the atmosphere between 400,000 and 650,000 years ago" suddenly tells us about "the modern atmosphere"??? And a study that looks at times scales of "tens of thousands" of years suddenly tells us something about the last 200 years??? Go figure!


Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


No comments: