Top scientist proves “Greenhouse Effect” cannot cause global warming” . So shall we now dismantle all those useless windmills?
17/08/2011

Top scientist proves “Greenhouse Effect” cannot cause global warming” . So shall we now dismantle all those useless windmills?  

 

 

Only green windbags think that wind power is anything but a sickly green joke – with the laugh on the taxpayers forking out massive subsidies to keep these vast, usually immobile white elephants as blots on the landscape.  Behind this costly and doomed experiment is an even more expensive boondoggle – the Greenhouse Gas lie. Now this unscientific theory has been refuted in a momentous lab experiment. The results should mean the end for climate taxes and those vast, useless symbols of Don Quixote.


This is from http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073 for those who want to read the full story. Professor Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico, backed by a team of international scientists, has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming.


Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.


The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.


Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin.


At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.  Another doughty campaigner against the greatest scam the modern world has ever seen is Christopher Booker, who writes in The Sunday Telegraph. Here again he disproves some widely held pet theories about recent “extreme weather.” He writes:

Sir John Beddington may have thought he was earning his £165,000 a
year as the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser when he was last
week reported as proposing that it should "use climate-related
disasters overseas to persuade British voters to accept unpopular
policies for curbing carbon emissions". 
  

 

The sort of disasters Sir John  had in mind included last year's Russian heatwave, the floods in Pakistan and Queensland and the current drought in East Africa, all of  which climate zealots have rushed to blame on global warming. But Sir  John, who is a professor in "applied population biology", may not be
aware that each of these examples has been shown by scientific studies not to be evidence of "climate change".


A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters confirms that the parts of Russia affected by last year's heatwave "show no significant warming  trend" over the past 130 years. Similar studies have shown that the
2010 Pakistan floods were no worse than those in 1929.
  The flooding in Queensland was lower than that in 1974. It was only turned into a disaster by the sudden release of water from a dam, which had been held back on the orders of state politicians who were obsessed with the need to store water because of their fear that global warming would cause droughts. Even the UN now says that the Horn of Africa's worst drought for 60 years cannot be ascribed to climate change.


In a week when Chris Huhne, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, announced "carbon saving" measures which are predicted to double energy bills within nine years and drive more than half the population
into fuel poverty, one can see that he might be desperate to "persuade British voters" that his absurdly costly gimmicks are justified. 
  

 

But if he wants advice on climate change more plausible than just scare stories that echo his own prejudices, he could do with someone better qualified in that field than a specialist in applied population biology - whatever that may be.

--

Finally, here’s how Rowena Mason put it, also in The Sunday Telegraph:

 Plans to get more than a third of Britain's energy from wind are unfeasible, as the national grid would not be able to cope, say researchers.

  Howard Rogers, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, said in a study that Britain's power network is not built for wind
power accounting for more than a third of capacity on the system.

He said that any more than 28 gigawatts of wind would mean it is likely that turbine owners would regularly have to be paid to keep capacity off thesystem. Earlier this year, six wind farms were paid £900,000 to stop generating for one night, because the system became overloaded.

The study challenges the ambitious estimates in a study commissioned by the Government which estimates that 58 gigawatts of wind is likely to be built in a "medium activity" scenario by 2030, out of a total system of 80 gigawatts of capacity.

Forecasts from the Crown Estate, the Government body that licenses wind farms, and Renewable UK, the trade body, give even higher estimates for the amount of wind power on the UK system.

However, Mr Rogers said this does not fully consider the ability of the grid to cope with the intermittency of wind, which often does not blow at all or can be too strong, causing overload.

"It would appear that the more ambitious targets for wind generation in the UK have been formulated without a full appreciation of the costs and complexities caused by the intermittency of very substantial levels of wind generation," the report says. "The analysis concludes that the maximum feasible level of wind generating capacity is 28 gigawatts.

At higher levels than this, the country faces the prospect of short notice intervention to reduce turbine output with the added complication that forecasts of wind speed beyond six hours into the future are inherently uncertain."

The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies is allied to three Oxford University colleges but also receives funding from "members" and sponsors, such as gas producers BP and BG Group and companies with huge investments in wind power, including Centrica and Dong Energy. Its gas research is also sponsored by National Grid.

Professor Jonathan Stern writes in the preface to the study: "It is no part of the remit of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies gas research programme to promote natural gas, either in the UK or more generally. We are gas researchers not advocates or lobbyists.   However, our research increasingly suggests that the likely future role of gas in energy balances has and continues to be underestimated."

See also: The Impact of Import Dependency and Wind Generation on UK Gas Demand and Security of Supply to 2025 (http://www.oxfordenergy.org/2011/08/the-impact-of-import-dependency-and-wind-generation-on-uk-gas-demand-and-security-of-supply-to-2025-2/ )
The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, August 2011


 
 
Insert key words to search our site and archives















'Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.'
1 Corinthians 15:58

© Copyright 1995-2017 Designed by www.visual-craft.com
visitors counter
7034666