Green on the outside, rotten to the core

By June 18, 2015February 18th, 2021No Comments

Dr Andrew Emerson says…

4:17pm Thu 18 Jun 15

The Greens are nothing if not hypocritical. Their party is funded by wealthy donors, many of whom have a vested interest in promoting the costly and inefficient so-called renewable energy industry.

Rich landowners, some of them politicians, are actually paid from public funds to have unsightly and inefficient bird and bat killing wind turbines on their land. And then there is the whole foreign aid and carbon trading scam, whereby British taxpayers are treated as a cash-cow to benefit countries of the Third World.

The Greens’ open door immigration policy would worsen the effects that we are already seeing: a huge increase in crime and excessive building of houses in our countryside.

Catastrophic man-made global warming is a lie. Certainly, humans contribute infinitesimally to CO2 levels. But to claim that this contribution, even if increasing, will cause an ecological catastrophe is both misleading and alarmist. And it is done, not out of any concern for the planet – they couldn’t care less – but from ulterior motives of political ambition.

For a better vision of Britain’s future – out of the EU – visit world wide web dot patria hyphen uk dot org.

Oldbruv says…

5:00pm Thu 18 Jun 15

You left the BNP because it wasn’t Right Wing enough for you, didn’t you?

Hyperbole won’t wash, you make numerous points there, not one of which you have backed up with any sort of source. Also you don’t mention Navitus, or give any coherent opposition to it, just happy to have an online rant at the filthy Lefties!

I particularly like your use of the word ‘infinitesimally’ in relation to our contribution to CO2 levels, as though decades of industry all over the globe just happens without any impact anywhere at all… lol, at you good Sir, lol indeed.

Dr Andrew Emerson says…

6:45pm Thu 18 Jun 15


No, I was expelled from that party for publicly criticizing its leadership.

As for sources: this is the comments section of a local newspaper – not a symposium in some ivory tower. Bear in mind that much research in this field is suspect through its reliance on funding from government and its agencies. But if you want to challenge any of my statements, just say so and I’ll be happy to cite sources.

Navitus – happy now? If I oppose wind farms on principle as inefficient and unsightly, as I made clear I do, then it stands to reason I oppose one being built off the Jurassic coast.

‘…filthy Lefties’ – your words, not mine.

The word infinitesimal means infinitely or very small. I used it in the sense of very small. And the human contribution to global CO2 is indeed very small. I’d be very interested to see any scientific source that disputes this fact.

Furthermore, I did not say that industry had no effect. I did say that to claim the human contribution to global CO2 will cause an ecological catastrophe is both misleading and alarmist. As of course it is.

Dr Andrew Emerson says…

1:33pm Fri 19 Jun 15

This is a letter published in the West Sussex Gazette on 25 June 2008. It was written by someone with real knowledge of this field, a retired chemical engineer and hence someone with no career to jeopardize through speaking the truth about global warming.

Christopher Woodward’s letter concerning global warming (June 4) hits the nail on the head.

As a chemical engineer with some knowledge of thermodynamics – which is what global warming by the greenhouse effect is all about – I have spent several months calculating just how effective carbon dioxide is in comparison with cloud and water vapour, the two dominant greenhouse agents.

With an intrinsic (ie, molecule-for-molecule) potency around three and two and a half times greater than carbon dioxide respectively, and a combined average concentration in the troposphere (which forms the bulk of the greenhouse blanket) more than ten times greater, atmospheric moisture accounts for more than 95% of the Earth’s total greenhouse effect.

The most profligate use conceivable of the world’s fossil fuels could hardly push up carbon dioxide levels to more than about 600 parts per million by volume (ppmv) compared with the present 380 ppmv.

I calculate that, with no change in the Sun’s radiative power, this would increase the Earth’s global mean surface temperature by no more than about 1/4 degree C, far less than the 2-3C (by the end of this century, no less) proclaimed by the global warming scare mongers who seem to have grabbed the world’s news media – and even some technical journalists who should know better – by the throat.

This is trifling compared with the natural cyclic variation of about 13C every 100,000 years or so between Ice Ages and interglacial warm periods.

To explain the major part of this phenomenon, I maintain that the Sun is a variable star with an energy range of about 20 per cent between maximum and minimum. The Earth’s orbital characteristics (axial tilt and eccentricity changes) do have some effects, but these are small compared with the Sun’s internal thermonuclear variations.

No-one else seems to have grasped the importance of the published evidence (from ice core samples in Greenland and the Antarctic) which shows this to be so.

I have developed a simple theory to explain this but that is more suited to discussion in a scientific journal!

As a corollary of my study, I calculate that even if we were able to ‘bust a gut’ internationally and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to somewhere near the 250ppmv level of the 18th century (some hope!), we still couldn’t reduce the Earth’s global mean temperature by more than 1/4C.

What an achievement! And at what a cost! Fatuous, as Mr Woodward says! I should add that no-one with whom I have so far corresponded has been able to refute my arguments.

Roderick Taylor, CEng, MIChemE
Bourne End

Note that CO2, about which we hear so much in the media, is responsible for less than 5% of the earth’s greenhouse effect. And as I have pointed out in an earlier comment on this thread, the human contribution to global CO2 is itself tiny. So we are talking about a tiny man-made contribution towards an atmospheric gas which is itself responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect.

And this tiny man-made contribution to global CO2 is, according to the climate change alarmists, supposed to bring about environmental catastrophe. Absurd is the only word!

Bournemouth Echo