Monday, 18 February 2008

Climate Change - A 'legless' theory exposed


The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) case has a 'Theoretical' science model for global warming which proposes it's man-made and as a result of industrialisation and man-made CO2 emissions. The IPCC case is almost entirely predictive using computer simulated climate models that 'estimate’ global temperature to rise by up to 6C by 2050.

The IPCC have used some Observational science including the famous Michael Mann study of temperature aligned with growth rings in trees with his infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature chart that shows a steep rise in Earths temperatures since mans industrialization after 1945 and WWII. The IPCC has also shown a CO2 chart made famous in Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth” film that shows CO2 proceeds previous global warming events.

The IPCC also suggests sea levels will rise as a result of this warming and extreme weather (high rain falls, hurricanes, tornados etc) are real signs of this happening now.

In short mans CO2 emissions (cause) is producing global warming (effect).

The Observational science case is based on both historical facts and present recordings of Earths climate. The statistical analysis of Earths rock and ice demonstrates CO2 levels and temperature levels rise and fall as a normal natural cycle over millenia.

The Observational science however breaks the back of the IPCC’s infamous Hockey Stick temperature chart as it shows temperatures have risen gently since Europes last mini-ice age and then rose steeply from 1905 and peeked in 1940. Since temperatures peeked in 1940 they've remained very steady since which leaves in tatters the IPCC's theory it began in 1945 with mans industrialization and has got steeply worse since.

The IPCC temperature claims showing very steep recent rises were also fatally flawed as they were based on land based measurements (urban growth around Temp' gauges have warmed the sites) whilst an innovative new level of measurement, using the correlation of data from both space satelites and weather baloons, has shown Earths temperatures have hardly changed in the last 30yrs.

Further studies in the Maldives (islands the IPCC say are severely threatened by sea level rises) have shown sea levels dropped 20-30cm in the last 30yrs (starting in 1975) which also directly contradicts the IPCC's projections and claims about current rising tempretures.

Observational science also debunks the IPCC claims about CO2 being the cause of warming. All ice-core records show CO2 follows previous global warmings. The lag in time between previous warmings and CO2 rising is 400 to 1,400 year after temperature rises. Namely warming (cause) creates higher CO2 levels (effect) long after peak Earth temperatures. Conclusive evidence CO2 does not cause global warming.

Good sources of research material here;

Film – ‘Doomsday Called Off’ (1st of 5 films) watch past first 4mins for ice-core data

Film - Al Gore & IPCC – CO2 and Global Temp Change ‘debunked’

19,000 scientists sign petition against Kyoto Global Warming pact

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "The Consensus"

Excellent Resource website for people 'suffering' from climate change 'hysteria'

Sunday, 17 February 2008

Speed is Safe - Fact versus Fiction

Worldwide speed and safety research shows a remarkable 'consensus' on motoways. Not only are motorways (the fastest roads) the safest (the lowest accident rates) but no matter what the speed limits Govt imposes they have little effect on accident or casualty/death rates.

Germanys autobahn network has approx. 30% of its autobahns unlimited with the remainder being limited to 82mph. You'd think unlimited speeds where people/motorists are allowed to drive at any speed they feel would lead to higher accident rates and more horrific levels of both accidents and casualties/deaths? Not so.

In fact Germany has lower accidents/casualties than all it's neighbouring countries (Austria, Czech Rep, France, Poland etc) all with lower speed limits. And Germanys record is also better than Americas with limits of 55-65mph.

Hard as may be to swallow there is no connection between speed and accidents/casulties. And even harder to understand is even on urban roads excess speed (over the limit) is only responsible for 4% of accidents.

The "Speed Kills" message from Government is not only unsubstantiated but ignores up to 99.9% of the problem regarding road safety. So why isn't speed the problem the modern myth purports?

Accident analysis points to the main reasons for accidents being bad driving (poor use of mirros, poor awareness), drink or drug driving, weather conditions, road surface, even road signage and markings).

German manufacturers and ADAC (the motorist breakdown organisation) claim the major area needing addressing is the slowest part of the autobahns and not the fast lanes. Namely it's poor lane changing manouvres near on/off ramps getting on or leaving the autobahns. And autbahn statistics also show their higher speeds don't lead to greater/worse accidents. Why?

3 issues also need understanding. Firstly all surveys show the majority of accidents come from the slowest 20% of drivers and the least accidents come from the fastest 20% of drivers. Faster drivers are more skilled, more aware and more able to avoid accidents. Secondly humans avoid accidents as we all have in-built safety limits and avoid accidents and overtly high-risk danger. Thirdly cars are built to be safe at top speeds (companies wouldn't produce unsafe vehicles) and all cars are perfectly safe at 70-90% of their limits (125-190mph+) so the technology is safe at 75mph to 160mph+ conditions (traffic density and weather) permitting.

JJ Leeming a UK accident scene and traffic engineering expert wrote a book devoted to improving road safety and improving accident rates. He wrote "I spent much of my career speeding up traffic as a way to reduce accidents".

The late, great automotive intellectual and journalist LJK Setright said "there should be no law against speeding. The only law should be dangerous driving."

Speed cameras in urban enviroments penalise speed but that addresses only 4% of accident causation. Speed cameras on motorways penalise speed but that addresses less than 1% of accident causation. And the UK's speed camera proliferation is having none of the desired outcome/objective of their implementation. In fact whilst the UK's roads are amongst the safest the accident rate is getting higher with the Govt's persistance with this flawed strategy. You can see why it's so fundamentally flawed when you look at the stats' and see they're not addressing 96-99% of the bulk of the problem!

Carbon CO2 emissions - 'Innocent' as charged

CO2 is essential for plant growth as it is absorbed by green plants during photosynthesis, the carbon being converted to plant mass, and the oxygen released back into the atmosphere. CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere at concentrations of about 0.0379% or 379 parts per million. It is neither a pollutant nor a 'greenhouse gas'.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% in the UK while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide! As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no green credentials whatsoever.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination."
Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

Further On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air's CO2 content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.

Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 BP, which covers the last glacial-to-interglacial transition that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.

In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of global warming.

The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere. It is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans. CO2 is not-guilty as charged. Finally the truth is here.. CO2 is completely innocent!

London Congestion Charging - £250M Failure

Voltaire said “If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”

Congestion Charging, Ken Livingstone believes, is to both 'reduce congestion' and to improve the enviroment. Admirable aims. Only it costs motorists around £200-£250M a year in beauracacy to 'support' achieving those aims... and has it actually acheived any target?

You really have to search through the smoke-and-mirrors of the latest Transport for Londons report to find anything approaching an honest answer. Shrouded in layers of gobbledegook and nonesense there's hardly a clear mission statement or achieved target to be found. Talk about honesty, clarity and accountability!!!

In fact the TFL report reveals both traffic levels are no better (filled with taxis and buses), average speeds have actually declined (average speeds through London have slowed from 16mph to 14mph) and pollution levels haven't changed one iota despite the masive expense and burden on motorists.

Ken now wants to 'change' his objective (a new goalpost) and targets CO2. Firstly CO2 is a essential natural resource for plant life. It isn't 'pollution' and it isn't even a greenhouse gas. And all worldwide road transport contributes just 0.6% to atmospheric carbon dioxide (96% are natural ommissions, man contributes barely 4%). So if all the cars in the world were removed tomorow there'd be no impact whatsoever on world CO2 levels. So Kens' new target is set for failure before he begins. Genius!

He's failed on both core objectives and will now fail miserably on his 3rd. You have to question quite frankly either his sanity or his real motives.

“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair, American Author (1878–1968)

Capita Plc the main contractor responsible for running the scheme has been wracked with scandal for funding Labour (some claim to secure the contract) and Directors have been raking in huge salalries and bonuses despite Capita failing to achieve targets. Capita rake in around £15-£30M a year in profits while Ken has made a paltry £14M in the 5yrs of the scheme which is an appalling return on the huge public investment required to start the scheme. It really is a scandal.

Both Livingstone and TFL are fundamentally misguided in their aims and in the process are destroying the quality of life in London for locals and the cities many visitors. Not only have they not achieved anything whatsoever but they support a system costing the Earth. How much longer do Londoners and a democracy have to put up with such complete failure?

Climate Spin reaches Sussex

I came across a little article online which highlights perfectly the insiduous creep of climate spin and propoganda (ie. nonsense) spreading through the UK.

Peter Midgely, manager for Kent & Sussex's Enviroment Agency claims "The storm which knocked down the oaks of Sevenoaks 20yrs ago, was I am sure, at least in part down to climate change".

The Agency had conducted "an extensive year-long study" in 2007 including "no Otters had been found in Kent's rivers" Mr Midgely predicted "temperatures would increase in the area by an average of 4 degrees over the next 50 years.."

I'm stunned at Mr Midgely being the first man to have established climate change as a fact rather than fictional thesis and that the facts have been under international scientists noses for 20yrs!! Mr Midgely has the data proving climate change and it knocked down trees in Sevenoaks!

I’ve written to the newspaper asking if Mr Midgley could publish the facts on the Enviroment Agency's website. Not heard anything back in 4 weeks.

A Solution to Traffic Lights

BBC Newsnight on 14 Jan '08 broadcast a programme by Martin Cassini that proposed 'binning the lights' and replacing them with a filter-in-turn system that returns freedom, responsibility and most importantly continuous movement and flow to the road network in place of innane traffic lights that stop, clog and are fundamentally stupid (inflexible and demand ignorant) robots controlling our movement.

If you missed the article here's Martin Cassinis' article on YouTube.. so refreshing

If you'd like to join the BBC Newsnight debate get 'stuck' in here. The pro-tear-down-the-stupid-lollipop-boxes are outnumbering the greenies 4 to 1 on posts (nice to know so many of us out there:).. and BBC have re-posted the thread on Newsnights front page because the topics been so popular

Man-Made Congestion - Traffic Lights

No natural biological or man-made system stops flow (exception of resevoirs/storage). Human and animals blood and digestion systems, our brains, computers or world wide web 'stops' content from moving. If it did it would clog, grind to a halt and in many cases collapse completely.

You'd think it would be common sense, that slowing or stopping traffic CAUSES congestion but not to the safety-dorks that (mis) manage our road system who don't understand at any level what they're doing.

JJ Leeming, a UK traffic engineering and accident investigation expert said he spent years speeding up traffic to improve road safety with much success. A stark contrast to the current failing road policies that slow, clog and congest costing ther UK an est. £20Bn pr.annum in waisted time.

Road-Rage to my mind isn't a symptom of social demise. It's a very simple build up of frustration day after day after day in motorists that feel they're not getting A to B efficiently. It's frustration at lost time and the feeling the system is ignorant and working against you. We take it out on other motorists but we should be walking into the Dept of Transport and demanding their resignations for incompetance.

My view may appear 'radical' but it's formed over years of frustration at traffic management systems that create delay an unneccessary frustration. I don't blame motorists as we all want to get from A to B efficiently (some slower than others) but we all share the same values.