Feet to the Fire: Responding to Dr. Godlee

Dr. Godlee, or Fiona as I call her, is a privileged pampered princess who enjoys dishing it out from a position of moral superiority. When confronted on the merits, she is somewhat out of her natural element. I certainly appreciate your honesty and willingness to shine a spotlight behind the spotlight.

I don't s'pose anyone watched the programme on Channel 4 last night? About climate change, and the mis-information that successive western governments and large multi-nationals have promulgated? As I never quite viewed myself as a leftie radical, more of a right-wing housewife (note: houseWIFE, not house-person, home-maker - even more puke-making than any of the others, or even the more current domestic-goddess - plain ole housewife will do just fine) - the point being that 30 years ago, the debate began about climate change. Except it was concerning the earth cooling down, not getting warmer. The programme noted cyclical events (not over thousands of years, although it did that too) over the past few hundred years or so, and interestingly, when the earth got warmer, carbon emissions were lower, not higher as those in the know would have us believe. The argument was not to prove the opposite to that occurring now, but to demonstrate that global warming has nothing to do with CO2 at all. It is the sun and its prevalence of hotspots which affects the level of cloud(s) in earth's atmosphere; thereby cooling the earth down or warming it up, as the case may be.

In short, the scientists who were questioned were all at the top of their profession and each and every one stated that there is a link between the sun's rays and climate change and that there is no link at all, between global warming and CO2 emissions. They noted that with all the natural gasses in earth's atmosphere anyway, even now, carbon emissions only make up 0.54% of all emissions of any kind - so one could ask why there is even a debate taking place, with so much emphasis on carbon emiissions.

The programme also said that any models being used for "proof" by gov't's etc., is based on there being something like an increase of 1% in carbon emissions each year from hereonin, when the science says that the actual percentage is 0.49%.

The programme beautifully illustrated that once politicians grab hold of an idea, no matter how innocent that idea is upon conception, once politicians put $$$$ behind an idea, then that's where the moeny goes - into reasearch. Except it is a bit like funding research into the habits of goats! Who would do such a daft thing - unless, of course there was big bucks to be made? It is indeed a terrible travesty that we in the west, nay, those who wield power, have permitted the use of misleading and in some cases, false science, merely to back up some rather erroneous claims, that happen to suit their purposes, which is presumably to tax the wotsits off the rest of us, with the epithet that we are saving the planet.

The most worrying part of the programme - and I am still trying to digest this 12 hours on - is that the effect of this drive towards a reduction of carbon emissions is not so much harming us in the west, who, by world standards are pretty well off, but is seriously undermining the efforts of African nations in their efforts to progress. A conference took place in Nairobi recently, endorsed by the UN?? / IPCC (a climate political group) whereby the messge was that in order to do one's bit, one must use solar panels! Solar panels?? In Africa? This is insane, and yes, funny too. A doctor's surgery was shown that had solar panels on the roof; except the dr. could only use the electric light OR the fridge, not both at the same time.

Like I say, I never viewed myself as a leftie but my goodness, I felt like one after watching that programme. So, basically, the message is this: carry on jetting all around the world because there is no reason why this should not happen. The planet is no better or worse for it. Apart from which cows dicharging gas is significantly higher than all of man's activities.

The final straw was that those who do speak out, the scientists who do possess substative data are silenced and ostracised by their peers, and worse, gain the attention of the radical elements of society who view them (the scientists) as being in the pay of the multi-nationals, which is also untrue.

I hope others will seek to promote the science as a testament to the truth, rather than endorsing misconceptions which remain unchallenged.

Another example of why carbon utilitarianism gets us nowhere. I see not justification for the blithe assertion that printed copies of a journal result in more carbon than a web version. Once printed, and distributed, a paper copy requires little energy to view. A website consumes energy constantly. Indeed, a small web server consumes about 12 KWh/day, but much of that is generate heat, which must then be pumped out of the room the server is in, itself consuming lets say another 6KWh/day. Then we must add in a share of the network hardware in the datacenter, the cost of transmitting the signal across the world, the costs incurred by the staff who work in such places etc. etc. Not to mention a tiny share of the vast energy sunk into laying the fibres, launching the satellites and so forth. Obviously, the total calculation would be enormously complex. Then we need to factor in the cost of all the client side computers, the energy cost of PDAs that are thrown away after a few years when better ones come out and so forth.

This must be compared to the energy cost of felling trees, making paper, making ink, printing, transporting it, perhaps the cost of transporting it as waste and landfilling it.

Can someone point me to some reasonable attempt to show which consumes the most energy? Until they can, I don't see that one is worse than the other. And this calculation doesn't even begin to take account of tertiary matters such as the real value of the journal. I'm sure we'd agree that a web journal that has no influence on anyone, was rarely read and never cited was a complete waste of energy (in all senses!).

J