HOT AIR & THE CLIMATE – Part 2

Let's ExpressPosted on by

I’ll kick off by reminding you that ‘Part 1’ is here

Naysayers in the Climate Change debate, (such as it is), are called deniers and sometimes skeptics. My own stance is that I am unconvinced. This suggests that I am open to being convinced, which is true, but not by lies, by contrived computer modeling, (that will give you any answer you require if you tweak it), or by factual inaccuracies. Also, the topic should be about real science not politics or the imposition of taxes. Politicians are obsessed by your money and they want even more of it all of the time. To get it, they invent things that you must pay for, like climate change for example. Politicians the world over love climate change. So, when I smell politics in any discussions about Global Warming I immediately assume it is yet another scam.

Anyway, this afternoon the Journal ran with a story that scientists in the United States have detected the highest levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere since records began. “It has sounded new alarm over the rise of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” This would be alarming if true so I read on. “The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has tracked atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1950s, detected 415.26 parts per million on Saturday morning.

It was also the first time on record that the observatory measured a daily baseline above 415 ppm. The last time earth’s atmosphere contained this much CO2 was more than three million years ago, when global sea levels were several metres higher and parts of Antarctica were blanketed in forest.” The documentary I included in Part 1 will rubbish this three million year claim for you if you care to watch it.

Anyway, so far so good you might say but then I re-read the paragraphs above and something stood out. I’ve been to Hawaii and the islands are just huge lava piles of rocks with mountains and the Pacific all around them. Everywhere you look you see black lava rocks and stones from volcanic eruptions. I looked a little deeper to discover that The Mauna Loa Observatory is actually built on the side of a volcanic mountain FFS. Over there you can smell the lava in the air and on the side of such a mountain the smell would be very strong.

But I have no real in-depth knowledge of lava other than what it is and how it got there so I went exploring lava and its carbon dioxide connection, which is what the headline is about in reality, only to discover the following

A geologist has researched the links and this is his take on the matter. “Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano – both observatories within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai’i and/or Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the active Raoul Island volcano.” He even mentions the Mauna Loa Observatory and its proximity to an active volcano.

The monitoring station argue that, “This natural-color satellite image of the summit of Mauna Loa overlaid with 100-meter (330-foot) contour lines helps illustrate why volcanic emissions from the summit rarely reach the observatory. The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 6 kilometers (4 miles) away from and 800 meters (2,600 feet) lower than the summit. Most of the time, the prevailing northeasterly trade winds prevent volcanically contaminated air from reaching the observatory. Only on a small percentage of nights do the winds become light and southerly, pushing volcanic emissions downhill to the observatory.” However, the very building itself is built on emitted black lava rock and the geologist has more to say about that.

“If we neglect to ask how the greenhouse effect of various gases is quantified in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties, the idea of anthropogenic global warming may well survive long enough for us to ask how the carbon budget establishes that observed increases in CO2 (Keeling et al., 2005) could not be caused by anything other than human activity. Plimer (2001), Wishart (2009), and Plimer (2009) point out that an enormous and unmeasured amount of CO2 degases from volcanoes.

This is not such a silly idea given that the source chemistry for lavas contains a surprising amount of carbon dioxide. Along with H2O, CO2 is one of the lightest volatiles (materials of relatively low melting point), found in the mantle (Wilson, 1989). The fluid nature of the aesthenosphere, or upper mantle of the earth, ensures that lighter volatiles are fractionated, buoyed towards the surface, and either extruded or outgassed into the atmosphere via volcanoes and faults.” Quoting published research, what our geologist is telling us is that CO2 emissions are very high around volcanos, it travels through the air and volcanic CO2 cannot be distinguished from man-made CO2.

So it is no surprise then that a monitoring station built on the side of a volcanic mountain would measure HUGE levels of CO2 in the air. You would achieve the same effect if your detection instruments were fixed to the wall of an active factory smokestack.

So for me, this article is political not scientific. It does raise another interesting question though. In the early years of the 20th century all the way up to the 50’s, monitoring stations were always sited in open country areas or on remote coastlines. Today however, for ‘convenience’, modern monitoring stations are situated in areas of dense populations such as cities.

It is well known that cities are a degree or two warmer than country areas because of the dense man made building materials trapping in heat. Also, the monitoring stations tend to be larger these days and this is achieved by simply closing the smaller remote stations and moving the staffs of these stations to a central metropolitan location. There are less monitoring stations today than there were fifty years ago. The real convenience here is, of course, cost. The problem though is that measurements are now taken in these city locations and then extrapolated out to the wider more remote world. In other words, readings taken in warm cities are presumed to be true of cooler rural areas as well, which they clearly are not.

So the CO2 figures collected from a volcanic mountain in Hawaii would not represent the CO2 levels of a remote hinterland in Donegal, Ireland. Yet again our climate story as presented here is composed of inaccurate scientific readings latched onto by a sensationalist press eager to sell copy through fear mongering and a waiting corrupt scientific community equally eager to use this to embarrass Governments into imposing unnecessary taxes on its citizens, (running to trillions of dollars), for the use of universities to produce more stilted science for an eager press to sell more copy etc etc. A well-worked and hackneyed formula to extract money for old rope. It is depressing that so many so called scientists and researchers are so keen to sell their souls for money.

And the climate will keep changing as it has done for millions of years without the help of mankind and mankind will lie and cheat to make their short lives more comfortable. We live in strange times.

A GREEN & TROUBLED LAND

Let's ExpressPosted on by

In 2016, in a full and free vote by the citizens of the UK, the majority, (slim as it was), voted to leave the EU and take back their sovereignty and assume total control of their own territories via their Parliament at Westminster.

It was an example of our cherished western democracy in action. As an Irishman, in the last several years I have democratically voted for the ‘other guy’ and been disappointed at how the majority voted instead. But I’m a democrat and as such, I must accept the will of the people and get on with it, whatever it brings.

That is why I am so fascinated by the UK today. Those who lost the election are now making every conceivable excuse as to why the will of the majority must be overturned. They appear to be agitating to move the UK away from democracy as a system of Government but they are hazy as to what wish to replace it. They seems to suggest that if they can overturn a democratic vote in favour of what the minority desires, then they are willing to carry on with the facade of democracy inside a wider EU.

More worrying still from an Irish perspective is the fact that the EU itself is backing the destroyers of democracy by making it nigh impossible for the UK to leave the club without fearsome retribution. I don’t support that as an Irish citizen but then I voted against this present Government’s election the last time out and now that same Government is at the forefront of making life hard for the UK majority. And of course, not one of the 550m Europeans voted for the Commissioners in Brussels.

I do find it strange in modern times that whenever an American Government decides to overthrow any elected Government anywhere else in the world, they position it as returning the target country to democracy and the EU bays its wild support in all of our names. For the American version of democracy, see Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine etc. None of that is democracy in action, it is pure fascism.

So what will they decide on in the UK? Will they choose to become a fascist nation or will they stick with their democratic decision and leave the EU? Time will tell but democracy is under threat and if the UK dumps it, what hope for Ireland?

THE CRASH-OUT

Let's ExpressPosted on by

Many in this country, and most in the UK, have no idea what the “backstop” actually is.

At its simplest, it involves re-locating a border, specifically the Eire/UK border. It is proposed that we try hard to think of an imaginary line in the Irish Sea and having solidified that thought, we must then regard it as the new border between the UK and the Rep. of Ireland. That’s what the backstop comes down to, an imaginary line in the sea.

It is all very fine in theory if you also imagine that six of the nine counties of Ulster just aren’t there, but they are and they are part of the UK, (The Good Friday Agreement says so). Therefore the backstop must involve either the UK ceding Northern Ireland to the EU or splitting the Union and allowing one member of it to remain in the EU while being a part of the UK at the same time. But then there is no BREXIT. Plan Z would be to tell Northern Ireland that they are on their own.

You can bet your ass that Arlene Frosty and her dull crew of ‘No-merchants’ won’t be ceded to anyone without blood on the streets first. They consider themselves to be more British than the Queen. In their mindset, the mainland is a continent to their immediate East called the UK so this EU-Europe thingy must be on the other side of Asia somewhere.

Down here the party line is, ‘there will be no hard border.’ In fact, Finance Minister Pascal Donohue was on Morning Ireland earlier and I nearly fell off my perch when I heard him say, “Dere will be no hard border on our border.” At this point it may be instructive to inform readers that, prior to the UK and Ireland joining the EU, neither party legally required a passport to enter the other’s sovereign territory. At that time, the early seventies, we had different currencies, different laws, different attitudes, different life’s experience and different Governments and yet we could travel freely between the two islands without formal ID. Effectively then, when we both joined the EU, nothing really changed between us.

So the British Government want out of the EU but without a hard border between the Eire & the UK. The Irish Government don’t care whether the British stay or leave but won’t accept a hard border. The EU would like the UK to stay but will try all it can to punish them for leaving. The EU also doesn’t want a hard border, hence the backstop that could only be patrolled by a Navy, but whose Navy? Meanwhile the UK itself appears to be split between those who want to leave and those who want to stay. A poster I used to have in the seventies just about sums it all up. It read, “Sometimes when you’re up to your bollocks in alligators, it’s hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp.”

So May is heading back to Europe to re-negotiate because she doesn’t want a hard Irish border. The EU leaders she will meet don’t want a hard Irish border either but say that there can be no re-negotiation. Over here we are all shivering with economic fear as to what the outcome could turn out to be. Looking into my crystal ball today I see a future where at the eleventh hour, the EU Commissioners will send May back to London empty handed, leaving her and her Government with no option but to crash out of the EU. Varadkar & Co will jump up and down in Dublin bleating and moaning and saying it is unacceptable. Then Leo will be summoned for a come-to-Jesus meeting in Brussels and on his return, he will tell a perplexed Irish Nation that it was the best deal we could get and it could have been worse if Fianna Fail were in power.

In other words, business as usual, nothing to see here, suck it up and get on with it. It was ever so!

BACK TO BREXIT

Let's ExpressPosted on by


Among other things last evening, there was a mildly heated exchange in my company between and Englishman in favour of leaving the EU and an Irish woman promoting the Irish establishment’s party line on the issue.

This took place around a convivial dinner table in a Cork hotel and it informed well the confusion over each others positions. I have to admit that I do not understand everything about it, (who does?), but the Irish media are misleading us by claiming the British were lied to in order to get them to vote leave.

Certainly there were lies told by both sides during the run up to the vote but then consider the deluge of lies we were told before being forced by to vote on the Lisbon Treaty a second time. That Lisbon Treaty, as I wrote at the time, was the death knell for the Irish Constitution. It was an evil document which sneakily made an ignorant Irish Nation hand over its sovereignty to an unelected elite in Brussels in the guise of something else and we didn’t even get thirty pieces of silver in return.

It is my belief now that the British have realized this in their own circumstances and a majority of them chose to take their sovereignty back, hence Brexit. In that regard, I support the Brexiteers in their quest and I believe also that at some time in the future, we Irish will begin to grumble about leaving the EU but more about that anon.

The Irish woman above claimed that the British despise the immigrants and that was the core of the issue. In the seventies when I travelled first to the UK I left a 100% white Irish nation only to arrive in a very coloured London, much to my astonishment at that time. There were black policemen, bobbies with turbans instead of helmets, Pakistani shop owners, covered Arab women and the brown skins on many nations on the streets of the Capitol. Far from being anti-immigrant it seemed that the British welcomed them in by the ship load.

The accepted narrative here claims that the British en-masse are anti-European and that is patently untrue. It was De Gaulle who blocked their first application by Wilson to join and it took Ted Heath to finally get them accepted into the EEC. But like ourselves, they understood they were joining an ‘economic union.’ We didn’t vote to give up our Irish identity in order to be ruled from Brussels. That it has morphed into that now should make us all very nervous, not just the British.

From the outset, I always understood that joining Europe was a voluntary act and while membership brought responsibilities, departure if unhappy would also be voluntary. I mean, what kind of club would force a disgruntled member to remain in its club. Dissent from within is infectious. So for me, when the British decided democratically to leave then there should have been a simple two stage process. First would be the formal disengagement involving an army of civil servants from both sides. Once the terms of the severing of ties was agreed upon the second part of the process would plan the relationship the UK would have with the Union once outside it. What would be the social and economic rules of interaction between both parties?

I have written here and elsewhere that there has been a marked lack of generosity of spirit on the EU’s part in this wrangle. It would have been judicious at the beginning if the EU elite had simply said, “Look we understand you wish to leave and that is your right. But how about we have a trial separation for say, twenty years, after which we sit down again and discuss how it has worked out for both parties? We may discover that it has been a win-win for the EU & UK, in which case, carry on. Or we might also discover that difficulties, we didn’t anticipate twenty years before, had arisen in the interim and it would be in everyone’s best interests for the UK to re-join.” That approach would have been wise and sensible with no bridges burned on either side. Were the EU afraid of something they’re not telling us? I see no justifiable reason to make an enemy of the UK now by insisting the backstop is non-negotiable. In any negotiation, everything is negotiable right up to the signing of a legally binding agreement.

Back in 1945 among the ruins of Europe, Gen. George Marshall put in place a plan to rebuild Europe. Unlike our so-called bail-out recently, it was a generous and giving plan that didn’t involve loans to be repaid with interest. Instead it was a heartfelt positive flow of money and resources to get society and industry back on track in Europe after years of devastation. There was an upside for the Yanks in that they were the industrial engine of the world at that time and with the American monies received, the fledgling European Governments bought American equipment and ideas to build factories.

In among that, there is the little known story of the birth of the modern German motor industry. A British Captain was given charge of an area of Wolfsburg in 1945. His men came across a factory which used to make the cute beetle car for Hitler. This captain instructed his men to take some undamaged parts and make as many beetles as they could with them. They made thirteen and the captain then sent some of these back to the British army engineers in the UK to test the vehicles for suitability in the armed forces. In the weeks that followed, the largest ever post war order came for one single model of Volkswagen car and the savvy captain brought in German managers and engineers to get the plant in Wolfsburg up and going. Even more amazingly, the post-war British Government gave Volkswagen back to the Germans. It’s all so easily forgotten as the modern snowflakes chant their anti-British rhetoric.

Forgotten too is the sacrifice made by thousands of “Tommys” as they beached in Normandy for Operation Overlord only to be cut to pieces by withering German machine gun fire. They were fighting and dying to free France from fascism. They did so again in the Low Countries and all the way across Germany itself. A mere 73 years later an unelected European elite seeks to humiliate them for their audacity in seeking to leave the club they run exclusively for themselves.

The sin the Brits appear to have committed is their stated desire to be free to run their own country. That ladies and gentlemen is the foundation stone of true democracy.

What exactly is the alternative to that??