Is “Climate Change” Scientifically True or Just Culturally Popular?

I am posting a provocative article that challenges our society’s accepted cultural beliefs about climate change. Admittedly more analysis and discussion is required, but let me convey a few concepts that should provide food for thought.

The current hysteria about that the planet is facing impending doom is strongly reminiscent of the old discredited Malthusian theory that too many couples having too many children would over run the capacity of our planet to produce food. We now have over 7 billion people, and we know that our planet can feed billions more, if we properly developed its potential. In the 20th century, Malthus’ unscientific babbling was further extended by the Club of Rome and World Wildlife Fund to assert that the our planet had limited-fixed resources that could only maintain a fixed number of human beings. Of course, none of this is true, nor was it ever scientifically proven, but it became part of the popular culture. I am now approaching 68 years of age, and know how this propaganda spread from the late 1960s on. I was there and organized against it!

Tragically, our culture today has accepted the new mantra of climate change, without a healthy scientific debate and analysis. For example CO2 is not deadly, it is one of the building blocks of life. If you look at weather events over time, a century or more, you will find that there is not an increase in hurricanes, and tornadoes. If you go back hundreds of thousands of years you’ll find several ice ages and warming periods.

Also, why assume the planet has one fixed condition? Tens of millions of years ago there was no Sahara desert; it was caused by the Africa plate banging into southern Europe. Since then, the Sahara becomes moist and dry following a 22,000-25,000 year cycle based on the wobble of the earth’s axis.

If we study our planet and universe over long periods of time, we will discover all kinds on patterns and anomalies. However, they all indicate a self developing universe. Mankind is not an antagonist to our planet and its environment, but rather, a co-contributor to its growth and development, which is not finite.

The principles of our physical universe are coherent with the principle of creativity that all human being posses. This leads to another discussion for a future time.

A special note to my African friends. Beware of propaganda that tells Africans they should have less children and forego industrialization, because it will destroy the planet.

Our planet is about 4.6 billion years old. Separate continents began to form approximately 200 million years ago-(mya). Early stages of mankind emerged only 3-4 mya. Homo sapiens sapiens emerged only a few hundred thousand years ago. Our universe is constantly developing and changing.

The complete article follows the excerpts below:

“The question is not whether, but to what extent human-caused changes in the atmosphere drive climate variations, and whether such changes are good or bad. Meaningful statistics (but ones that do not exist) would include responses to the following questions:

• What would be the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2?
• To what extent does water vapor cause a feedback effect?
• To what extent must we take into account the solar magnetic field’s effect on the creation of clouds via cosmic radiation?
• What is the certainty range on these predictions?
• How well have climate models of the last two decades fared at predicting the global climate during the past 5 to 10 years?
• Will the specific, foreseen changes in climate be beneficial or harmful, or a mixture of the two?

“The climate of the Earth, as it exists in the solar system, is much more complex than a foolishly simple, yes-no question about “believing in” or “denying” climate change.

“How can any such changes be determined? An individual cannot possibly notice that the climate is changing through their personal experience, which is necessarily limited in location and time. And it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that anyone could know, through their personal experience of weather, the cause of any such changes.

“Science is not fashion. It is not decided by taking a poll or by seeing what is most popular…

“A cultural paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, transforming the understanding of the relation of human beings to nature, and transforming the meaning of “progressive” from supporting progress to preventing it!

“From this paradigm shift arise the unstated assumptions that underlie the emotional responses that many people have to these issues. One such assumption is a definition of “natural,” which excludes human activity, implicitly creating a goal—humans should simply not exist. This goes along with the shift from global warming (a specific change that could cause problems) to climate change, taking the assumption that any change to the climate would be bad, simply by virtue of its being change. Is this really true?…”

Continue reading article

South Africa: A Leader on the Continent for Nuclear Energy

Mr. Kelvin Kemm, in this in-depth interview, excerpted below, discusses the realm of energy choices for South Africa as well for other African nations. More are considering nuclear energy as a safe and reliable power source for their economies. Mr. Kemm also discusses the anti-nuclear lobby and the causes for climate change. I recommend you spend the time to read through the entire interview.

“South Africa Builds on Its Nuclear Success”

Interview With Kelvin Kemm, who is chairman of the board of the government-owned South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, known as NECSA,

Kemm: “The current situation is that nuclear is still on the agenda exactly as it was; it’s unchanged. There’s been somewhat of a delay because of various issues—we have a new President now, as of a couple of months ago, and a new Minister of Energy. But nothing has changed with the plan to add 9,600 MW of nuclear—to the existing total from all sources of 45,000-plus MW of electric power.

“However, the wind and solar people have been making a lot noise and made quite a few inroads, in that they’ve influenced the public thinking a lot. In doing this, they’ve done quite a bit of sabotage of nuclear, in the sense that they spread false stories that nuclear power will kill your children, and that there’s an unsolved waste problem, and that South African workers will not be able to meet exacting nuclear standards.

“In contrast…We say that you’re not going to run electric trains across the country on solar and wind, you’re not going run the gold mines; but we have no objection to solar and wind where they can work—in rural areas and in small applications, dedicated applications, which is in stark contrast to the anti-nuclear people, who condemn anything that has the word “nuclear” associated with it.

“I’d like to branch into something else, that there’s a lot of nuclear technology which is not nuclear power. So while the extreme greens are attacking the nuclear concept, they’re doing a lot of other damage. For example, South Africa is currently the second biggest supplier in the world of nuclear medicine; we’re major suppliers to the United States. In Pretoria we’ve got the only nuclear reactor in the world that runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, producing nuclear medicine for the world, with deliveries taking place three or four times a day, every day of the year, including weekends and public holidays. We send this nuclear medicine around the world. It is a great life-saver for cancer patients, for example, and in diagnosing other diseases.

“Last year, in 2017, I was invited to speak at the inaugural African Union Economic Platform meeting in Mauritius. One of the things I mentioned in my presentation was nuclear power for other African countries, and I was inundated with reaction.

“Half-a-dozen-plus countries, now, have already spoken to us directly, asking if we can supply nuclear power to them. Now, that is in the form of the pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR), which South Africa developed a number of years ago. That reactor got to the point where we were ready to start constructing the first prototype, when the government of the day then put the project on ice. They didn’t actually close it down, but they put it into such low gear that it eventually stumbled to an effective standstill.

“Golly, how can you have an African country dependent on rainfall to keep the lights on? You just can’t do that. And numbers of them said they had no coal, oil, or gas.

“They said, what’s next? The anti-nuclear lobby has been going on with their hand-waving and demonstrating, to get solar and wind, but many of them have been very senseless. Hey, wait a minute—you don’t get solar at night. And so hopefully the wind blows. What happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Now, you’ve got nothing. And the
green just say, well, that’s the way Mother Nature designed it: Live with it.

“And so, many African countries have gotten wise about it, saying, wait a minute, we’re about to get suckered here into this thing. And they’ve realized now that the only solution they’ve got is to go for PBMR-type nuclear.  because with nuclear, you can stockpile fuel very easily, for a very long period of time. It’s very easy to keep a year or two, or three, or four of nuclear fuel supply in a couple of bunkers, because the volume is so small; whereas you could never keep two or three years’ worth of coal in a pile around a power station. Here in South Africa, we try to keep a two-week emergency supply of coal at power stations, and even that is a mountain of coal “the size of an Egyptian pyramid.” And they go through that very quickly”

Read entire article