Bryer will be exonerated for wrong reasons

KEITH Bryer’s: Agreeing on Climate Change will be a very costly affair for all of us applies. First let me state up front, that my opinion is neither, for, nor against the whole sorry misunderstanding of what I call the ‘asinine and puerile bun fight’ about ‘global warming’. If it’s going to be all ‘jaw’ and no ‘action with positive, confident alternative solutions’, what’s the point?

We all know, from previous Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP, over the years that COP21 in Paris will be an abysmal failure, and a great indictment not of the ‘toothless’ UN, but of the West’s cynical, power and money manipulators, who use taxpayers’ money ultimately to pay UN salaries.

In response to the advertisement for ‘public hearings’ to ‘stop negative impact of climate change’ put out by the Department of Environmental Affairs, my written submission, stating an entirely feasible alternative strategy to roll back at least half of all greenhouse gas emissions presently entering the atmosphere to ‘pre industrial revolution’ levels in 15 to 20 years, has been ignored entirely. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

So much, for the ‘narrative of concern’ for the environment, by environmental scientists and government-sponsored greening strategists. They have no idea of what causes climate change, they just assume they do, if taking ‘ positions for leverage’ to Paris is anything to go by.

Let me try and understand where Keith Bryer is coming from, as stated with his ‘blindingly obvious’ oxymoron.

“Agreeing on climate change will be massively expensive and turn the world economy upside down.”

I would have thought that someone in Mr Bryer’s position would have guessed by now that the ‘world economy’ has been terminally ‘upside down’ since the ‘criminally sponsored’ world financial melt down of 2008. I suggest that “massively expensive” without even a summary of a ‘bad plan’ to ‘manage the limits’ agreed on for an increase from present ‘limits’ of carbon emissions, demonstrates a great and total loss of traditional human intelligence and wisdom in seeking solutions to all our ‘self-inflicted challenges’.

“The cost of food, fuel, building costs, just about everything would rise.”

I would have thought it ‘blindingly obvious’ that prices of everything, have spiralled out of control from way back in the 1970s of the last century.

Comment: In 1972 I bought an ‘out of the box’ SWB Land Rover for R2 500 cash. I was young and excited about the world. “Taxes will rise too.” Income tax, and all other indirect and hidden taxes have risen exponentially in line with monopolistic practices and the cost of government services for the last 20 years. When does the gold laying goose lie down and say: no more!!

“The private sector will be faced with yet more regulations and backed by the draconian threat of fines.”

I tell you, Mr Bryer there are dragons cancerously eating away at us while the ‘private sector and government lackeys’ of those who control the money supply, feast on champagne and caviar. The very people who don’t give a hoot about funding welfare, COP21 or anything else, are recipients ultimately, of the hard-earned ‘taxes’ we pay. “Cast thy bread upon the waters, and it shall return in many days with fat commissions and interest.” The ‘saintly’ moneylenders’ refrain!!!

Which brings me to the ‘pressing matters’ Mr Bryer brings up about the ‘Middle East, mass migrations into Europe, the Ukraine shambles, and the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan’. Can you believe that there are people cashing in, wholesale and retail, from war, refugees ‘people smuggling’, the Ukraine and the poppy fields in Afghanistan? Don’t you see a pattern emerging here?

Whatever happens at this much vaunted, upcoming Paris “whore fest”, nothing will change. The token $2 billion (about R27bn) will hardly cover the ‘party’. The UN will still be toothless, the participants “shagged” to a standstill, and not one soul will be any the wiser – in the ‘developing’ or the ‘developed’ world – about the direction in which we the sheep, and the planet, are being led. Can it be the precipitous vortex of a ‘black hole’ in distant space?

Be of cheer Mr Bryer, no offence, your opinion about COP21 will be exonerated, but for all the wrong reasons. Ultimately our voices of reason are never heard.

Why don’t we have a clarification session about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’ because that is something we can’t at this stage, influence if it’s occurring? My e-mail is: biocap200390@yahoo.com. I’d be delighted to make your acquaintance and that of any reader with strong opinions about the state of the ‘human condition’. HARRY COLLINS MUIZENBERG

Many have still not gotten the message

Paul Driessen’s opinion piece (Business Report, September 28) tries to use a basic principle of capitalism – the company is entitled to maximise its profit – to show that climate change is not a problem, prophets of doom are.

How the problem of profiteering can be solved I cannot say. But the existence of one problem does not disprove the existence of another. The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly and this change will affect people all over the planet. Driessen does not include in his sums the massive profits to be made by companies rebuilding flooded coastal cities.

Driessen is correct in saying that climate change has been real throughout Earth and human history. Until now, however, there have been natural causes and significant changes have been gradual, allowing humans, animals and plants to adapt. Now change is taking place over a couple of centuries.

In the last paragraph of his piece Driessen demonstrates his ignorance of the climate change problem. “It has little or nothing to do with carbon dioxide,” he writes. Physicists know carbon dioxide is central to the problem. He mentions the sun but does not realise that energy from the sun is absorbed by carbon dioxide atoms. More carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere mean there is more energy stored in the atmosphere and movements in the atmosphere become more energetic. Put simply, rain that fell in a fertile valley may land somewhere else. That is climate change.

The first calculations of this effect resulting from human emissions of carbon dioxide were published in 1896 by Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius. And still many people have not got the message. CEP SMITH MIDDELBURG

A case study in severe paranoia

Since Paul Driessen’s anti-climate change piece flew directly in the face of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists I was at a loss to categorise it scientifically. However, persevering to the end through his disturbing anxieties about the worldwide green takeover (the greens under the bed!), I came to the conclusion that it would do rather well as a case study in severe paranoia. CHRIS CHATTERIS VIA E-MAIL

Cynical wealth grab in Brave New World

As regards the articles by Paul Driessen and Keith Bryer, it is well to comment on an article dated March 14, 2011 by Drew Zahn of Worldnet Daily titled, “Look how much it costs to lower temp by one degree”. New calculations applied to a US Senate report, reveal the Environment Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would, theoretically, take over $700 trillion (R9 quadrillion) to drop the earth’s temperature only 1ºC.

The report released in 2010 by Republican senator James Ihnofe of Oklahoma, then a ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA’s statistics and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the plan of the administration of President Barack Obama “absurd”.

Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr Linda Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts: “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, ‘absurd’, affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively infeasible, overwhelming’, that will ‘adversely affect national economic development’, while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to ever consider regulating’.”

And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators are decrying? The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25 495: “Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015ºC by 2100.”

So, in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78bn per year in spending would have lowered the earth’s temperature by about one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. In other words, the US would be paying for a global warming elixir that reduces temperatures at the net rate of $700 trillion per degree. The author goes on: “You’ve suspected it, now is the proof: A top meteorologist’s documents on how ‘global warming’ is just a cynical wealth grab.”

Since obviously the above will be impossible, the global warming lobby will in time tell us that global populations will have to be reduced to some 500 million “to save the planet”. This was a proposal at the Global 2000 conference in the 1980s. This was supposed to be achieved by war, starvation, diseases, poisoning of the environment and the victims will be blamed for it. Brave New World indeed! C MATHEY BELLVILLE

Whatever happens at this vaunted, upcoming Paris “whore fest”, nothing will change… The UN will still be toothless… and not one soul will be any the wiser.