Friday, July 11, 2008

Global Warming...can I have a grant now?

It's encouraging so see some (long overdue) pragmatism emerging over anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But there are still some alarming omissions from what the public are allowed to know.

It's bad enough that C02 emission trading schemes are being thrust upon already crippled societies to solve a problem which doesn't exist. It's bad enough that green religious zealots are screaming "unclean!!" at those who would dare deny that humans are ruining the planet and must pay. Even worse that these green zealots are in our parliament and our media, shutting down all debate by saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.

I stumbled upon this post on Andrew Bolt's blog by an unidentified poster. If what he's saying is true, and it certainly appears credible, the implications (whilst a little subtle) should be shouted from the rooftops with the same hysteria as that practised by AGW disciples.

I've edited some of the heavier scientific concepts and added some emphases:

As a retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist in the geoscience - sedimentary rock discipline, I strongly support the view that there is substantial real hard empirical science that refutes the notion that carbon dioxide is driving climate change, which is a natural continuum. Further, evidence (not assumptive modelling) suggests man-made carbon dioxide seems to be a trivial component in the full scope of climate variation.

The highly beneficial ... effects of carbon dioxide are largely ignored; ... recent modelling from Cornell University (Mahowald) shows a reversal in desertification is possible. If reversing the time-direction in climate prediction models cannot emulate known past climates, why should we believe their forward modelling?

This full science appears to be actively suppressed by much of our media. Let’s have a Royal Commission now, and sort this out for ourselves publicly. A close inspection of the real data from sedimentary layers in the ocean floor, lake floors, in ice-cores, stalactites, coral accumulations etc show a clear record of past climate, temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Understanding and integrating all the disparate data required.

On the bright side, there is some real hope contained in existing technologies to *re-cycle* CO2 as nature does with photosysthesis. I have provided pointers to this information and a proposed solution to recycle carbon dioxide into food and fuel - directly to all political parties by emails, and at the Science in Parliament Day in Queenland in 2003, and to colleagues in CSIRO. This technology was viewed at the time as highly disruptive, as it undercut research funding into (uselessly) burying CO2, and what increasingly seems like a fraud that underpins the calls for Emissions Trading.

Technology has existed for over 25 years to convert CO2 into algal protein and microbial oil using solar digestors, algae like Chlorella and Spirulina, and bacteria like Arthrobacter and yeasts like Candida. We require coal-fired base-load power stations to be oxygen fired, and then pipe the concentrated CO2 stream to solar farms for a closed-system recycling into food and fuel. Laboratory trials in Toronto in the early 80s suggested amazing yields of up to 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per hectare per year, as I recollect. At this rate all of Australia’s annual fuel requirements could be produced by 1600 hectares.

Worth a few dollars to investigate I would think, but it has not been funded appropriately if at all. Why?

That's a bloody good question.


No comments: