Something rotten in Denmark as CO2 fanatic Thomsen emits new CO2 bollocks
If you can’t deal with the financial, or the social, or the foreign policy, or the currency, well then: why not turn to the world of fantasy? Quite so: we’ve had three years of Wily Eurocoyote now, but steaming along in the background has been the good ship SS Eureconut. Having steamed up the Severn in order to flood southern England, the SS Eureconut is now moored securely off Looneyland, that last place on the planet that continues to ignore the overwhelming destruction of the case against CO2 greenhouse gas syndrome.
Britta Thomsen has all the credentials necessary for a fighter on the side of bollocks against unsettled science: she is a full member of the EU Committee on Energy, and is the Dean of the Gender Equality Committee. On being re-elected this year, Mzzz Thomsen told us all “The EU’s importance for Denmark is growing every year, and it is important that we Social Democrats engage in cross-border struggling to influence the EU in the right direction”.
Oh dear. Yesterday she steered her “ambitious and binding targets” through the European parliament, which voted in favour of the 2030 framework for climate and energy policy on greenhouse gas reductions. I bet the Ed Miller Band is creaming its jeans.
One wonders: do any of these clowns ever read the output of scientists at the cutting edge of CO2 monitoring…in particular those at NASA? Three years ago, I began referencing the work of top NASA climate scientists – in particular Roy Spencer. This was because I read a long but incredibly well documented paper he’d written about CO2’s rate of escape from the Earth’s atmosphere.
The new NASA Terra satellite data revealed at the time were:
* consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models.
* support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted.
*for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than ‘consensus’ computer models predicted.
There is now a hole in the CO2 reduction strategy bigger than the real one in the Earth’s ozone layer. That hole is a genuine concern to everyone with a brain; CO2 production isn’t any more.
In a piece on his site yesterday, Doctor Spencer reiterated the following FACTS:
As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.
Only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years just to increase that number by 1, to 40.
That is an atmospheric occurrence of 0.4%. It is a homoaeopathic level of problem…and it isn’t a problem: it’s there for a reason – it acts to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without that gas.
The 93% scientist “consensus” hailed by Miliband Man labours under the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact, NASA’s extensive satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
There are far, far more pressing and neglected areas of pollution and conservation to focus on than CO2. If Britain went ahead with the low-pollution coal produced by Edinburgh scientists, it would take coal fired energy generation 270 years to lift the CO2 atmospheres per 100,000 by 0.00035%.
I’m worried by ozone holes, I fear nuclear dangers, I want to see far more research devoted to the sun’s energy, and I am certain that the world’s water supply crisis is close to a tipping point, and oil, petrol and gas emissions produce serious localised pollution episodes. But wind power doesn’t work, it is far too expensive to maintain, it is a blot on the landscape, and it is not necessary in the global context.
Britta Thomsen’s “ideas” on Green energy are up there with Heinrich Himmler’s on Aryan jaw measurements and the Jewish Untermensch theory. Where, one wonders, is UKip on this issue: not voting on principle?