The golden rule: if it is too good to be true, then it probably isn’t
It strikes me that there must be something wrong with this Maltastar report about Sargas’s presentation to the media.
Sargas offering a plant producing low cost electricity and is totally pollution free
(…)
Sargas said it will be powered by a fuel that consists of a mix of biomass and fossil fuel. “The plant captures 95% of carbon dioxide … (which is then) exported out of Malta by ship to Denmark where it will be stored underground.”
Sargas said the capture of carbon dioxide is crucial for Malta as after 2013 EU regulations to reduce global warming will cost Malta an additional cost of €15 per ton of carbon dioxide together with oil prices and all these costs will be reflected in the water and electricity bills.
(…)
There’s no rationale here, or perhaps the reporter just wasn’t thinking. Sargas hasn’t claimed that its plant doesn’t produce carbon dioxide.
You don’t need an O-level in chemistry to know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to burn biological products and fossil fuels without producing gases. Matter doesn’t disappear when burnt: it transforms into something else.
What Sargas says is that its plant CAPTURES 95% of the carbon dioxide its plant produces when the biomass and fossil fuels are burnt. It claims that this will help us avoid the tax the EU plans to levy on carbon dioxide production, though I can’t see how that can happen unless the tax is on release into the air rather than on the production itself. If the gas is generated, then it is generated, and the tax has to be paid.
The interesting thing is that Maltastar (I wasn’t there to check whether they are actually quoting Sargas) describes this as ‘100% pollution free’ because the idea is that Malta exports its problem to Denmark (hard to believe) by shipping the gas there and having it buried beneath Danish ground.
What?
And how is this going to be cheaper – or more environmentally sound, for that matter – than paying a tax on carbon dioxide released into the air?
The cargo-loads of gas are not going to be shipped free to Denmark or buried there for free either. I have no idea of what they might be, but basic business sense tells me that the payment for shipping a ton of gas to Denmark and burying it there is going to be a whole lot more than 15 euros.
And these costs will be reflected in the price of electricity and water.
Worse still, if the EU specifies that its tax is going to be on the generation of carbon dioxide rather than its release into the air, and we have to pay the tax even if our gas is shipped to Denmark in tight containers and buried there (a really sustainable system, I don’t think), then we shall have to pay the tax AND the shipping and funeral costs for the gas.
58 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What’s so environmentally friendly about shipping gas, anyway?
Who are these people? Has due diligence been made about this company and its directors? Is it represented in Malta and, if so, who are these representatives?
As far as is known, this new technology is still being tested at a power station in Sweden.
How many power stations are these which use this technology, or which are on order?
The waste problem is still there requiring twice weekly shipments for disposal.
http://www.sargas.no
Their costings are based on experimental data only as this process is still being tested and developed.
It appears that Sargas wants to use Malta as a testbed for its new process and we will be financing its research and development costs.
If we make a mistake here it will be a financial, economic, environmental, ecological disaster which will wipe out our tourism industry and will haunt us for years to come.
“The interesting thing is that Maltastar (I wasn’t there to check whether they are actually quoting Sargas) describes this as ’100% pollution free’ because the idea is that Malta exports its problem to Denmark (hard to believe) by shipping the gas there and having it buried beneath Danish ground”
This is socialism – “their pain our gain” and it’s why socialism in the global context is passe.
As for this plant, the CO2 issue is key. As you say the plant is not CO2 friendly but a plant that captures the dangerous CO2 and dumps it elsewhere. Although I am not an expert concepts like Terra power seem to have already superseded this plant’s technology
If this technology is all it is made out to be, then why has not taken the world by storm?
PL are in a frenzy to justify their absurd claims of fuel-bill reductions. Of course the “mob” will swallow anything our dear Joe says “ghax jifhem, ta”
Actually carbon sequestration is a new(ish) industry and is perfectly legitimate from a scientific perspective. I didn’t know the Danes were doing it but the Norwegians certainly are. (Sargas is Norwegian).
The difference is that so far they (the Norwegians – Statoil) are mostly doing it not with CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels, but CO2 separated out from the natural gas they are extracting. So its a cost of production of something wildly profitable in a sellers market, rather than a burden on the cost of production of something where cost of production needs to be reduced to a minimum.
There are many methods of carbion sequestration and many of them under test or planned in many parts of the world but all of them seem to be funded or driven by Oil or Coal Companies and the U.S. Department of Energy, in turn driven by the former’s lobbying bodies in Washington.
Which kind of makes you think its a cynical ploy to make it ‘OK’ to continue to burn fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow…. which there probably won’t be if we keep at it anyway. But the point is that caarbon sequestration is therefore a bad idea in itself. We should be looking at not producing emissions rather than finding ways to hide them.
That being said, even if the economic costs of carbon sequestration for an island with no oilfields to pump it down were reasonable, the carbon ‘negative’ aspect of this particular project hinges on the idea that there will be a lot of solid carbon left over from the biomass consumed, which seems like an accounting trick to me. And presumably that ALSO needs to be shipped and stored.
The additional logic applied is that if you’re burning replaceable biomass rather than ‘one time only’ fossil fuels, then that will be replaced by new plant growth, so its ‘carbon neutral’ and so far it IS counted when calculating your carbon allowance. The thing is there’s a movement afoot to stop doing that, part of the reasoning being that if it takes a forest 100 years to grow, then at best its carbon neutral over a 100 years.
Now here’s an idea, why don’t Sargas build their own power plant in Denmark or Norway?
Then if it IS cost effective and cheap compared to other sources, we can buy it from them through our EU subsidised underwater cable.
And if it isn’t cost effective?
Or stops being so when it is no longer avant garde and other people are building cheaper more efficient plants?
We can buy it from a source that is, without having been committed one way or another, and with the ability to pick and choose over time.
That seems to make sense to me, but then I’m not an economist…. oh wait…. oops….
“I can’t see how that can happen unless the tax is on release into the air rather than on the production itself. If the gas is generated, then it is generated, and the tax has to be paid.”
Not quite, a carbon tax is levied on emission. The principle is that carbon dioxide is harmful as a greenhouse gas.
The tax for carbon emission can be as high as 40$ a tonne
Carbon capture and storage is being very thoroughly investigated by a number of major companies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/carbon-capture-and-storage
To be honest it is not a matter of if but when. The sad thing is that the Opposition should have been asking the government these questions in the first place instead of going on some elaborate wild goose chase
This plant will produce ten times as much fly-ash for the same amount of HFO fuel burned.
So by Joseph’s Marsaxlokk press conference standards there would be 120 containers at the background in his next press conference about the Sargas plant.
Biomass is organic/domestic waste, something which Joseph outrightly opposed in the Sant’Antnin project, by trying to block its EU financing.
Sargas has the approval of the elves on timesofmalta.com and maltatoday.com.mt, which says a lot. Businesses lobbypoliiticians, and when they get the cold shoulder from one lot they run to the other.
This already happened in the BWSC saga when the opposition supported the Israeli company and we noticed a lot of huffing and puffing from the Israeli politicians.
In the process, I caught a Labour elve: ‘Vincent Williams’ on timesofmalta.com’s board is actually one Leo Attard (though perhaps it’s the other way round or he has two false names).
VINCENT WILLIAMS
Yesterday, 17:52
‘No government officials were present’.
What an arrogrance, insensible attitude, prepotency and insolence from GonziPartitNegattiv!!!!!
Thank you John Dalli for at least trying to give a helping hand to your country by introducing ‘Sargas’.
Also thank you Joseph Muscat, leader of the Labour Party for contacting John Dalli about ‘Sargas’.
That is the way forward for our country.
Surely the way in which GonziPN has been governing is a negative one.
John Schembri
Yesterday, 18:31
Are you for real?
Mr leo attard
Yesterday, 20:09
@John Schembri — No, ARE YOU for real? If there is a chance for an efficient, cheap, clean power=producing plant, then dont you think the govt should at least consider it, instead of throwing the whole deal without looking at it? In fact, the govt looked upon the Sargas deal as a plague and wanted to distance his govt rom it — makes you wonder whether or not there are conflicts of personal interest. The PM referred to its use of coal as a deterrent; what about the Heavy fuel oil in the BWC?
The text is not legible …
Highlight it and voila’ !
What has to be underlined, and this is extremely important, is that CCS is separate to power generation and that CCS systems are being tested on gas fired plants.
CCS is NOT exclusive to Sargas.
THE BWSC plant being built is convertible to gas. If one were to assume CCS as a viable option, the first thing to examine is whether the EU’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (taxing emissions) will accept CCS as an alternative, exempting such method from the envisaged tax.
I personally think that to be highly unlikely.
What is certain is that if Labour decide to put CCS across as one of their proposals, they should immediately refrain from promoting an integral package as proposed by Sargas and concentrate on the CCS aspect alone.
Anything else is suspect and doesn’t correspond to the interests of this country.
Saviour Balzan could have let himself in for a ride, his green reputation at stake.
One other thing, Norway is not a member of the EU and its technology doesn’t have to abide to EU regulations.
You are wrong; though Norway is not a member of EU, it is a member of EEA and has to abide by EU laws.
Exportation of carbon dioxide is very expensive.
No country is going to dispose of your waste for free.
You have to pay a hefty price for the disposal of carbon dioxide.
One other point; Labour Party is promising a considerable reduction in utility bills and they are also claiming that they have done all their homework.
Could they enlighten us on this technique? They are supposed to have all the answers and solutions.
Maybe Labour sent Cyrus Engerer to break into Sargas’s office at night for a sneak preview of the detailed feasibility studies?
Malta should start thinking of having its own carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) program which would require that we find an underground safe geological reservoir for pumping of carbon dioxide gas.
The EU has realised that it has to implement CCS to mitigate climate change. The question is why export CO2 gas to Denmark?
Is this a strategy to boost the Danish CCS program with Maltese taxpayers money?
[Daphne – You really have to be Labour to reason like that: giving money to Denmark. I see it differently: exporting our pollution.]
Pumping CO2 underground is something untested and in the best case scenarios we’d only be postponing the problem until, eventually, the gas resurfaced.
In my opinion the solution lies in fiscal incentives for wind and photovoltaic generation by private parties.
What does being Labour have to do with what I said? Are you a twat?
What I am is my own business..but if this makes you happy, I am not a member of the Labour Party.
[Daphne – You don’t have to be a member of the Labour Party to vote for it. When people say that how they vote is their own business, they mean that they vote Labour but are too embarrassed to admit it. I’ve been around long enough to know that when people are reluctant to talk openly about how they vote, it’s because they vote Labour. I used to work with a columnist like that: Josanne Cassar. I have absolutely no problem with telling people how I vote.]
How you vote is everybody’s business, unless you’re a one-person state.
The technology does exist and is successful. Discovery channel showed the process in quite some detail .
In short CO2 is pumped deep underground into porous rock where after time the rock and gas combine. Incidentally limestone was created partly by CO2 that was absorbed by the seas and oceans that finally found its way to the sea-floor and helped make new rock .
This technology is not cheap. The maths side of the whole system needs to be thoroughly looked at .
Daphne,
I think this also raises three important questions.
a) Despite confirmation – twice actually – by the Auditor-General, the PL still complains of lack of transparency on the Enemalta Delimara Tender won by BWSC. And that despite a fair tendering process, appeals procedure, and the rest. Now? Are we just saying, Ok, let’s give it to Sargas because they seem good?
b) The BWSC power station, the Labour says, is only tried and tested in a handful of places around the world. That makes of us guinea pig. In this case, it will be the VERY FIRST prototype (so far, only a mini-exemplary exists). So no guinea pigs?
c) The new extension in Delimara should be ready by early 2012, if I remember press reports correctly. So what do we do with it? Would we have spent some 170 million euro just to scrap it away?
I’ll tell you something that was too good to be true: the lower court decision in the Montanaro Gauci case, where one brave Maltese judge had ordered that a property that was wrongfully taken by a squatter with the blessing of the State, be returned to its rightful owners after more than 25 years of legal drama.
Of course the Constitutional Court could not allow that decision to stand. Nor could they allow current market values to factor into their ultimate decision.
Has anyone ever looked into how many members of Malta’s judiciary have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regard to these ongoing and egregious violations of property rights?
Off topic, I know, but this latest development really made my weekend.
Capturing Carbon dioxide can be done in two ways (1) by chemical reagents such as Lithium oxide or by (2) physical processes such as cooling to the freezing point of Carbon dioxide which is some 78 degrees below 0 degrees Celsius.
Both methods are very expensive and they are technological ‘fixes’ and end of the pipe measures, frowned upon by environmentalists because they do not address the source of the problem.
This system can produce up to 20% of ash. Labour made all that fuss about a few tons of ash that will be produced by the Dellimara power station running on fuel oil.
CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) is controversial, however Sargas IS apparently offering an option of a total solution whereby Enemalta/the consumer only pays for the electricity generated, so all the details are of little concern.
It’s a common enough scenario, especially with renewables, whereby private enterprise foots all the bill for setting up the plant and simply sells the end product.
Hence, what the end product costs is all that concerns us, truth is, if the cost per unit drops by ANY amount then it will be worthwhile.
It’s different with renewables in that the cost is usually far greater.
Coal is still phenomenally abundant and last I read we have several centuries’ worth of it still un-mined, so it is cheap.
Also worth noting that China sets up a new coal fired plant something like once a week… and they are probably far larger than the Delimara power plant – just to put things into perspective.
I came across an article by Sargas dated 2006, promoting exactly the same power plant. No takers in five years? Not even Denmark itself, which will bury its own gases underground ?
Sargas has a lot of explaining to do, unless it’s another non-starter of a start-up company.
Some businesses try to sell start-ups. They are basically in the business of research, which is a high risk business, because research ideas can succeed or fail technically or commercially. Actually, the percentage of commercially successful ideas in the world is very low. Even if a scientific idea works, it may not be commercially viable.
So they try to find clients to buy the output of research still to be done.
This way, they can guarantee that the research is financed. They will basically be selling all their research time, rather than writing it off or deferring it to be written off in future.
Malta has seen some similar proposals in the past, not necessarily in this sector.
While reserving my opinion on the Sargas propsal until further details emerge, and the Enemalta analysis is available, I must point out that the EU always refers to carbon dioxide emission i.e release into the atmosphere, rather than production.
The Sargas proposal utilises technology referred to as CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), which has been studied for years but is still experimental. Here is a recent (Dec 2010) scholarly article on CCS:
https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Briefing%20Papers/Briefing%20Paper%204.pdf
And another one on the SARGAS CCS technology:
http://www.cpi.umist.ac.uk/eminent2/Publications/148%20Hetland.pdf
Warning: heavy stuff, just to skim through.
The captured CO2 will actually be pumped into oil wells to increase extraction rates.
From what I gather, there is only one similar plant operating worldwide and timesofmalta.com’sreportage of a reference to an experimental plant might have been misunderstood.
They are proposing a floating rig type power station which is efficient in burning fuel and efficient at capturing it. The captured CO2 is then exported.
It is pointless to deny or procrastinate the fact that climate change measures have a cost. The energy plans for Malta look very good on paper and although some progress has been made in solar and solar thermal, this is nothing to what we have to achieve.
I am concerned with the waySargas feels able to interfere with the politics and government of a small island nation like Malta, almost pushing us into buying at all costs their technology.
They claim that they will halve the production cost of electricity without explaining what it will cost to dispose of the carbon dioxide produced, and engaging the gullible media to explain only their positive propaganda.
The latest one is their claim that if Malta connects to the European grid, then we can sell their excess production.
Why are they not already selling their electricity directly into that grid somewhere else where it exists already, then?
Why do they need to come to Malta to connect into a grid that does not exist as yet?
Malta is an EU country, and follows EU energy policy-making. Besides looking at cost, we have to ensure energy security, and that often means resorting to a variety of sources, rather than reliance on one source, even if the costs are different.
If Sargas has the pollution-free technology of the future, why are they trying to sell it to tiny Malta, rather than making big money with the big energy consumers, like the UK, Europe, the US, Australia, Asian countries?
Unless I missed something in the article below, there is again no mention of where this technology is in use.
Actually, what I see is Sargas trying to get the government to commit itself so that it can then build the plant in Korea.
This basically means that we will be committed to a long term project, supposedly under construction on the other side of the world, where we have no control as to what is being done, how, and under what schedule, in a culture that is very different than ours.
We will basically be committed to five years of experimenting until 2016, when we will have the plant on a barge. Meanwhile, we would have supported Sargas through its phase of technology experimentation, helping them to reduce their business risk through this phase.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111126/local/Does-Sargas-hold-the-answer-to-our-energy-problems-.395554
Let the experts do their studies, and let them take their time. And then let the government of Malta take the decisions.
Not to mention the fact that pollution will still be generated if the CO2 were to be shipped off to Denmark, defeating the purpose.
Surprise, surprise – Kurt Sansone at The Times seems particularly keen on this project, but forgot to point out to his readers that coal iis the most polluting fossil fuel.
Nobody seems to have asked Sargas’s CEO why they didn’t approach the Maltese government directly rather than speaking to an EU Commissioner from Malta.
Actually, did they approach the EU Commissioner, or did he approach them?
Can I ask this sort of question, or wll the EU Commissioner write to the Blogs Authority about it?
Apart from technical considerations, the whole sales approach by Sargas is questionable.
This is a power station we’re talking about, not some kitchen appliance. They contacted John Dalli privately (why him?) then the PM, again privately, and finally their salesman organised a public presentation, for all the world as if they were selling table top ovens.
Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
This is weird. Governments do not give direct orders for goods and services. Governments publish tenders for procuring goods and services, so all this talk about this Government or the Labour Party in Government investing in this power station on the basis that Sargas organised a public presentation promising to get blood from a stone, is all hogwash.
This whole saga is a sign of things to come with Joseph Muscat in charge. Build a power station with a direct order instead through a tender process.
SCARY.
There may be many legitimate questions to ask about this project, pros and cons, cost effectiveness and comparisons reflected in bills, long term commitment of Denmark, Greece’s ability to continously export olive pits (apart from debt ) eksetra eksetra…..
But please spare us the false scruples about the poor Danes. First of all, they are not mad. And secondly, they may have even found a benefit for it. It’s not that we would be burying nuclear waste under African streets without their knowing.
Cheaper it may not be, initially. But reasoning that it is better to emit CO2 and pay Brussels money to be wasted God knows where, rather than paying the Danes a bit more to willingly dispose of it efficiently and safely, defies logic, at best. (I know, it will end up in bills..but for once it would be a clean increase)
And where does anyone think BWSC fly-ash will end? I havent seen any bothering of conscience about this, and cost considerations. Frankly, a country as small as ours have to dispose somewhere of its energy waste. Apparently, no one is yet willing to accept our fly-ash, but a country is willing to accept our CO2. What is the problem?
The problem is that CCS is still an experiment, an interesting one, albeit with a storage success rate still below 50%.
No one vouches for the successful storage of industrial quantities of CO2 inside depleted oil wells, the EU is considering the construction of demonstration plants, not commercial power plants.
The game is to get these installed before scientific data is gathered and feasibility studies are concluded, and with Malta’s size such a strategy is very risky.
As yet there are no plants with the three stages in place, namely capture, transport and storage.
Another problem, in our case, is that CCS is being offered on condition we use coal fired generating sets.
CCS is at its worst using coal, the best performance given by gas fired plants.
Why we should discard an existing plant, convertible to gas, and revert to coal, handing over our autonomy as well, given that power generation would be in their hands, sounds weird.
Why don’t they offer CCS to the existing plant? We’d still avoid the emissions tax and concentrate our efforts and finances on real zero emission technology.
“And where does anyone think BWSC fly-ash will end?”.
Elementary,in concrete and Tarmac.
Don’t tell me that BWSC’s 13.592 metres cubed of fly ash per week won’t mix with Tarmac and concrete , while Sargass’s will blend in more willingly?
Some simple estimates (today I can sit down)
BWSC is a 140 Mega Watt plant producing13.592 cubic metres (Ciccio2010)
Sargass 360 Mega Watt plant with the same burning efficiency will produce how much?
From the table below(wikipedia):
Pollutant Hard coal Brown coal Fuel oil Other oil Gas
CO2 (g/GJ) 94600 101000 77400 74100 56100
SO2 (g/GJ) 765 1361 1350 228 0.68
NOx (g/GJ) 292 183 195 129 93.3
CO (g/GJ) 89.1 89.1 15.7 15.7 14.5
Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ) 4.92 7.78 3.70 3.24 1.58
Particulate matter (g/GJ) 1203 3254 16 1.91 0.1
Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ) 360 444 279 276 272
The ratio for every Giga Joule produced by an HFO plant is 16 grammes to 3254 grammes produced by brown coal.
Comparing like with like.The Sargas Plant is 360 MW , that is two and a half times bigger than the BWSC
So if BWSC’s plant is as big as the Sargas it will produce 13.592 X 2.5 = 34 metres cubed of fly ash per week.
From the table above we can safely say that for the same amount of power(which we don’t really need) , the Sargas plant will produce 34 /16 = 2.12 X 3254 =6,898 roughly 7,000 metres cubed of fly ash per week. That’s 1,000 metres cubed of fly ash a day.Ten metres high,ten metres long and ten metres wide ,that’s 1,000metres cubed.Ten metres is around thirty feet or a height of a three storey building.
That’s 209 20 ft containers per week passing through Marsaxlokk, instead of the three we will have with the BWSC plant ! 15 40 foot containers a day .Or 2 containers per hour. I’m stating this because in the picture shown on the Times we can only see one ship being unloaded from coal , and there’s no silo for fly ash to be reloaded on the same ship which will bring coal.The fly ash silo should have a volume as big as one ship’s hold I assume.
Assumptions:
Fly ash from olive pits and other ‘biomass’ is the same while the limestone additive to absorb sulphur was not included.
Can anyone confirm my rough estimate?
I have a number of questions/concerns:
1.
I have a number of questions/concerns
1. Who are these people? How solid are they? who are the backers? Will they still be around in 50 years or 100 years?
2. What return are they expecting for the capital they are employing? There was mention of receiving a rental or an annual income from the Goverrment. Will this translate into more taxes for us, eliminating the gains from the reduced costs?
3. They indicated that they could not guarantee the lower costs over a span of years. Will we therefore find ourselves forking out more money in 2016?
4. The sales pitch that they used strikes me very much like IT sales pitches that I have seen, where the marketing people promise the earth only to deliver dust. I do not this that being one of the first people to benefit from this technology is necessarily the way to go. With our size and therefore with the limitations on our budget I would have thought that waiting for the technology to be developed, thereby also becoming cheaper, would be the way to go.
5. Does it make sound sense to deliver our energy into the hands of one private company? And a non-Maltese one for that matter. What will happen if they fold or if they decide that the returns are below expectations? Will they happily just shut down and take their technology with them?
6. What happens if we decide to go into this project and this does not succeed?
I find it strange to believe that a Socialist Government is doing its best to privatise what is essintially the lifeline of our country. Even I, certainly not of a socialist leaning, find relinquishing our energy sector to one company very hard to swallow. If we were large enough to have multiple suppliers that would be a different matter, but anyone with a basic understanding of business will know that, as a result of our size, the demand here will never be sufficient to allow more than one company to operate profitably in Maltae, and certainly not with the capital outlay that is being mentioned.
Funny how a crucial life-giving gas has suddenly become the devil. Plants need CO2 like the air we breath. The more there is, the more they take in. The wood in the trees does not come from nutrients in the soil but from the carbon in CO2. Lack of carbon (as is the case today) yields less forests.
In short:
Fact 1: Periods of high CO2 levels have yielded more plant growth, which in turn raises Oxygen levels.
Fact 2: Warm periods have been found to follow periods of high CO2 levels, not vice-versa. In other words, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the other way round.
That’s why political anoraks and serious, mostly retired, scientists, call it the ‘global warming hoax’ or the ‘CO2 tax scam’.
But then you’re bedazzled by how they can lie through their teeth, get caught a thousand times and still get away with it.
That’s because you’re far from knowing how the system really works.
Correction:
Fact 2: Periods of high CO2 levels have been found to FOLLOW warm periods. In other words, higher CO2 levels do not cause global warming, but the other way round.
Correct me if I’m ‘RIGHT’ Kev
“Fact 2: Warm periods have been found to follow periods of high CO2 levels, not vice-versa. In other words, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the other way round.”
Are you sure this statement makes sense? According to the first sentence, CO2 DOES cause global warming.
Lino, I see no contradiction. In the first instance I’m saying that CO2 is crucial to plant life (and to us), while the second fact simply points out to one (very clear) point of deception: that warm periods have NOT been found to be caused by higher CO2 levels.
Humans release a relatively insignificant amount of CO2 into the air. A single volcanic eruption could equal a number of years of total human emission. To believe we are significant enough to change the earth’s climate is similar to believing that the earth is the centre of the universe.
To boot, real scientific data clearly shows the globe has actually been cooling in more recent years – which is the cause of fraudulent IPCC figures and email-leak scandals.
As to why there should be periods of global warming and cooling throughout millennia, even before humans existed, there are more rational explanations, such as solar activity and changes in the earth’s core and crust.
Why not try explaining how the Medieval warm period came about? What was their carbon footprint back then? Was there some Medieval Al Gore who banned eating beans and ushered in the cold period that followed?
You’re right in that there is an error in relation to Fact 2 – I meant to write:
Fact 2: Periods of high CO2 levels have been found to FOLLOW warm periods. In other words, CO2 does not cause global warming, but the other way round.
Kev, nature has always tried to find a way of preserving its original balance.
Human, animal and plant life and activity produce methane, CO2, etcetra, which in turn damage the ozone layer; but then nature also has a way of repairing things through lightning strikes, photo synthesis and other natural processes.
Nature was never programmed to repair the damage caused by man-made fossil fuel burning, even though it tries to cope. But the rate of ozone degeneration to the rate of natural repair has gone grossly out of balance and hence nature cannot cope any more.
Nevertheless, I still think that the first and second sentence of Fact2 are contradicting.
Kev, thanks for your correction re Fact2. However I still think that extraordinary amounts of CO2, (due to man-induced activity), causes my afore mentioned imbalance.
I think that taking nature alone, excessive afforestation may bring about an excess of CO2 which damages the ozone layer and may account to natural big scale forest fires, which in turn result in warmer periods and more CO2 due to the fires, but then less CO2 due to the decrease in afforestation.
That may explain what follows what, but surely the equating formula is a very complicated one naturally, let alone if it is further complicated by man-made interventions
I think you’ve been believing too many lies for far too long. I have tried to avoid details – there are many – and I also avoided linking, because one can write volumes on this matter, starting from how it all begin, who the actors are, what’s the hierarchy involved, what the many-faceted agenda consists of, to what aims and how it connects to other global events.
Just one thing, the planet is very resourceful in self-replenishment. Man is an inconsequential blip.
Another conspiracy theory, Kev. You never seem to run short of these.
Kevin, I made it a point in my life to read more than I write and what more, to believe only that which subscribes to my logical and scientific understanding.
Any source of information which I read will not go down unfiltered, but even if I don’t agree, I do not necessarily account it in my conspiracies ledger, in fact I only keep factual scientific ledgers in my books.
You seem to put too much emphasis on the volumes one can write, yet your ‘conspiracy’ attitude indicates that you are inclined only to believe what YOU write and that others should believe what YOU believe or write,otherwise they are believing lies.
Science and scientific data acquisition is what it is. If you don’t believe in certain data, you can always says that the instruments to collect it were not properly calibrated or any other excuse to discard it.
U mela, Lino! You can go back to sleep, now – it’s just a ‘conspiracy theory’ after all. And that’s the proof, hux.
But:
1. You cannot be logical without the facts, or worse, deceptive non-facts. You are being rational and logical only within the constraints allowed by the non-facts overpowering the unknown facts.
2. I am putting emphasis on the volumes written by others (don’t be a silly child) and on the indisputable evidence that other rational and logical people, experts in the fields, have painstakingly unearthed.
If this is all so very strange to you, well here’s some news: we’re hardly scratching the surface – it gets weirder and weirder the deeper you dig.
Now before sending you back to sleep, Lino, here are two good quotes for you to chew on:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” (attributed to Herbert Spencer)
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” (Dresden James)
Kev, which are the ‘lies’ I have been believing for far too long and which is the ‘truth’ which seems utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic?
We seem to have diverging arguments.Yours seem to be philosophical and mine scientific.
I cannot quite follow your term “fraudulent lies”. Do you mean twisted data, twisted or wrong conclusions from correct data or what?
I agree that contempt prior to investigation breeds ignorance but how am I showing contempt in my line of thinking?
What are you questioning the IPCC reports about? Scientific data? The interpretation of data? Extrapolation on factual data?
Which are the well-packaged web of lies sold gradually to the masses over generations? Scientific principles? Physical laws?
I can assure that deceptive non-facts won’t make it through my filter while I’m not astonished why it is only you who knows the unknown facts.
Too many to list, Lino. It’s a paradigm change you and many others need – nothing to tackle in a short comment. I can assure you, however, that I’m a St Thomas who investigates meticulously before deciding on what to believe, reject or place on the back-burner. Evidence is evidence – it could be scientific, documentary, photographic, even anecdotal if sufficiently corroborated – and this does not only relate to climate change but more broadly to politics at large.
The real world is nothing like what’s been presented to us. But as I said, applying logic without the necessary facts is a useless task.
Here are just two sites (of several hundreds) that deal with the global warming hoax: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org and http://wattsupwiththat.com Start digging.
You might like to watch this documentary:
The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk
And while you’re at it, why not hop over to the other world of illusion? – NATO’s Secret Armies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zrc7RHC1A0 (as you watch this, pause to think about Breivik and the Norwegian massacre)
It is very rare that the mainstream media go so far (although I can assure you that there’s much, much more to both these stories).
What’s wrong with moving away from fossil fuels, which require a global system of distribution and control, to a network of renewables operated on a microlevel? Isn’t that something which lowers collective dependence on the few?
Isn’t being lightweight in consumption a freedom in itself?
I’m sorry Kev, but somehow I couldn’t not point out this contradiction in your reasoning.
As for the relation between CO2 and warming, the hypothesis IS based on what you say, that if one follows the other, the cycle could be closed leading to a reciprocal repetition, and human generated CO2 is simply accelerating the process.
Not to mention the PMI’s present in urban areas, directly related to CO2 emissions and localised climate degeneration, or better, smog.
As for Piazza Fontana, agreed.
Moving from fossil-based fuel is an entirely different argument, Jozef, and deception should form no part of it.
I’m glad you agree over Piazza Fontana, etc., etc., hopefully you understand the implications, as well as the fact that things have not only NOT improved but have more recently taken a much more sinister trend.