CAPE TOWN — Here’s a real cage rattler that might force you to shake your head and re-calibrate everything you thought you knew about rapidly-advancing climate change, global warming and the sumptuously-dressed vital alternative energy sources punted daily in our media. Alternative energy is a cheap, job-creating no-brainer that just happens to save the planet into the bargain, right? Well here’s some disruptive thinking – based on hard science that questions every premise upon which those assertions are made. It’s certain to re-ignite the debate because the estimated $2.4 trillion about to be invested annually for the next 30 years to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels might be a monumental waste, costing jobs, increasing the price of electricity and making no difference as the earth balances itself out – as it has for millennia. Yes, the CO2 proportion in the atmosphere has nearly doubled since 1940, but the logarithmic rise drops off at current levels and may well prove to be negligible, the author quotes the science as saying. Geological scientist Robin Richards, says the warming is levelling out. Don’t throw away that sun screen if you want to avoid skin melanoma though. Do however, consider this. – Chris Bateman
By Robin Richards*
Most readers of Biznews will be well aware that under the terms of the Paris Accord an attempt was made to persuade countries around the world to reduce their CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels so as to keep further warming of the planet to less than 1.5°C. According to the latest Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) this will cost $2.4 trillion each year for the next 30 years. That is an enormous sum of money and it is only fair, for everyone on the planet who one way or another will be called upon to contribute, to question whether it is justified.
The relative stability of the earth’s climate throughout geological history, notably since life evolved, is truly remarkable. It is an extraordinary natural buffering system. While CO2 has fluctuated between about 280ppm where it was in 1940 and 5,000ppm during the Cambrian period 550 million years ago, the earth’s average temperature has been maintained by natural feed-back mechanisms within a range of about 10C. These feed-back mechanisms are extremely complex and even today are by no means fully understood.
The part played by the so called greenhouse gasses notably water vapour and to a small extent CO2 has been known since the middle of the 19th century when Tyndall demonstrated that their presence in the atmosphere explained why the ambient temperature of the earth is about 33°C warmer than it would be without them.
The interest in CO2 dates back to the 1970s when it was noticed that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere was rising fast due to the burning of fossil fuels. It has risen from about 280ppm in 1940 to about 400ppm now. It has been postulated that the slight rise in temperature that this would theoretically produce would trigger feed-back effects and give rise to run away or catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)
Almost all scientists agree that the part played by atmospheric CO2 in raising global temperatures is logarithmic. This is not the place to go into the details of the absorption frequencies of the various greenhouse gasses which will be well known to your readers with a scientific background. Suffice to say that at atmospheric concentrations up to 280ppm which is where it was about 80 years ago, CO2 probably has a significant effect but from about 400ppm, which is where we are today, the effect becomes progressively less significant. It may well be negligible. Many highly respected atmospheric scientists including Professor Lindzen, the foremost atmospheric physicist of his generation, whose recent lecture to the GWPF, endorse this view.
Professor Lindzen’s views are supported by thousands of scientists like Fred Singer (who designed the first meteorological satellite), the late Bob Carter (the famous Australian geologist), Willie Soon ( an expert on the sun’s magnetic fluctuations), Roger Pielke (an expert on extreme weather events and sea level change) , the two Svensmarks (who have demonstrated the link between sun spot activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation and temperature) , Judith Curry, John Christy, Professor Happer, Peter Ridd ( the expert on coral ecology in the great Barrier Reef) to name just a few.
The expenditure of $2.4 trillion per year in an attempt to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels will in all probability prove to be futile. You only have to look at the experience of countries that have tried to abandon both nuclear and fossil fuels as a means of generating electricity to see how expensive and disrupting it has proved. Australia and Germany are prime examples. I find the IPCCs proposals incomprehensible.
Professor Lindzen concluded his lecture with the following words:
“What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science.”
It is against this background that here in South Africa, influenced by the recommendations of the IPCC and by the financial interests of wind and solar farm developers, we are in the process of spending hundreds of billions of Rands on alternative energy all of which has to be backed up with fossil fuelled generators to cover periods when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. We can’t afford it, we don’t need it (we already have sufficient generating capacity from coal fired power stations), it is going to cost this country hundreds of thousands of jobs and the price of our electricity will increase exponentially.
- Robin Richards, MA Oxon Hon Nat Science (Geology).
Good Morning Alec
Thank you for publishing the article this morning by Robin Richards titled Global Warming, an Alternative Disruptive View …
One only has to take to the internet more often, and especially YouTube, as more and more High level, highly reputable professionals come to fore in regard to Climate Change, and all agree on only two things, i.e. That Climate Change is an ongoing Dynamic process which cannot be controlled by Man, and that the effects of CO2 are somewhere between nominal and non-existent.
The use of latest technology in measuring equipment has confirmed that there is absolutely NO build up of CO2 in the troposphere, nor is there an increase in temperature in the Troposphere which would be necessary to keep CO2, one of the heaviest gasses, suspended in the Troposphere so that it could react as a reflector/green-house gas to heat energy trapped within the lower atmosphere and cause a recycling of heat energy which would cause global warming.
The extreme variations in temperature and climatic conditions also indicate that the initially purported Global Warming has now given way to a more sensible statement, that of climate change, which nonetheless is still not influenced to any measurable extent by CO2, yet the BS has been contorted a little more to suit the narrative of the Lie.
The current build op of new ice sheets at the poles is also serving a disruptor for any further illogical thought about global warming.
True Climate professionals, Oceanographers and other Scientists, all admit that even a build up of carbon dioxide would most likely take place closer to the earth surface, and would be more helpful in promoting the growth of all types of vegetation, including agricultural products, whilst warming of the oceans which is the other often misconstrued issue has become another misused and abused fact to suit the narrative Lie, which however in actual fact serves to stir up the oceans and is a necessary process to regenerate various life forms at various depths, and is also serves to provide more good than harm.
Published articles like that of Robin Richards, which is very informative and assist those still ignorant South Africans and Globally that have believed all the BS purported by Al Gore and his cronies in an effort to turn climate affairs into a money making racket, through their failure to ask questions and the lack of actual evidence to support the CO2 Global Warming Boogey Man theory.
For years I have told people that they are being fed a lie, based just on the basics of Chemistry and Physics 101, which confirm that CO2 being the actual cause of Climate Change is actual BS. The fact that the theory attempts to override the solidly proven Le Chateliers Principle of equilibrium in a closed system, the fact that matter is neither created nor destroyed, and the principles of Newtonian mechanics and gravitational attraction, the periodic table of elements and atomic mass, and the principle of conservation of energy and momentum which should has sufficed to enlighten anyone with an even half baked education that CO2 build up in the Troposphere could never have served as a Greenhouse gas to create global warming.
Even closer to the direction of Robin Richards’ article, is the fact that nobody is able to provide actual cost figures ( we are merely expected to believe what we are told, that renewable energy is cheaper without all of the data required to determine if it is true over a lifespan of approximately 30 years ) to build renewable energy systems per megawatt hour that can actually be achieved at end of project construction, nor has anyone provided thus far clear figures indicating the number of people that will be employed on a continuous basis in a renewable energy plant, solar or wind per megawatt of energy produced, nor has anyone provided sound figures of expected lifespan and megawatt generation lifespan of a renewable energy system, so as to enable actual comparisons can be drawn between costs with other forms of energy generation like coal, hydro etc..
I am currently not convinced that Renewable is cheaper both in initial capital cost or over total lifespan, and therefor can also not believe that generation cost can be cheaper, as replacement cost has to be factored in to match coal etc.., nor am I convinced that Renewable energy systems provide the same level of employment or higher despite much hype which I believe to be absolute BS, since I believe that in most cases only Power Station staff or Renewable energy site staff are only accounted for, and not all people involved in the production of products like coal, through mining, processing plants and transport, and the indirect spinoff that these provide in the form of sales of various types of equipment into the coal mining and coal electricity generation industry.
What I am convinced of, is that we are neglecting some of the most important issues for a country like South Africa, in that we badly need to create jobs where people are currently located, and that so far all solar and wind farms have been constructed hundreds of km away from where people are currently located and working, and the cost of uprooting these people and moving them to a new location for new jobs will be astronomical and will destroy many local economies in an attempt to build new ones somewhere else, and it is doubtful that enough jobs will exist to absorb these people.
I am also convinced that existing coal mining companies should possibly start running pilot trial projects by building solar farms on top of old worked out mining areas, and open land which they own, to be run in parallel with existing operations in order to gather data as to the viability of solar farms, which could possibly then replace jobs lost in the coal industry, but which of course is subject to sensibly processed recorded data.
Further it is my belief that that we are being forced into a narrowing channel with more expensive production costs with less employment opportunities and spin-off for other services, which will result in an economic catastrophe especially in a country like South Africa with a growing population and an extremely large segment of people who have limited education, and are capable of little more than labour intensive jobs.
How South Africa tackles its energy production and all forms of production be it for goods or services is extremely important, we need to be producing high volumes at the lowest possible cost if we have any hope of creating jobs, and bring as many people as possible into the economic system who actually can afford to pay for goods and services and live a better life. South Africa although it must apply sound economic and political policies that meet International muster to attract investment, we cannot allow ourselves to be lead blindly by BS purported by certain people like the Al Gore’s of this world, who has mislead a multitude of people, and international organisations who have no teeth who try to enforce climate treaties etc.. which mean absolutely nothing, and provide absolutely no benefit for our country.
I find it strange that our government seems all to keen to ratify and agree to all sorts of Climate Treaties which have absolutely no value for South Africans, and yet they are unable to just meet sound investor policy requirements which would have actual benefit for all South Africans.
Once again, Please keep publishing important informative and educational articles that like of Robin Richards, so that we can wake South Africans up to the Realities of this world.