The myth of Global Warming
''The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.'' ~ Arnold H. Glasow



At MISTRAL we abhor waste of any kind and we also share sensible concerns not to pollute our planet. To that end Mistral's products can help considerably. Furthermore, if mankind was really contributing to Global Warming then Mistral would of course have a vested interest in campaigning. After all, saving energy is one of the key benefits our systems provide. However, Mistral is obliged to deal only in facts. Our conscience prohibits us therefore from cynically adopting the herd mantra, as so many corporations do, purely for marketing or PR reasons. Mistral believes that -

Man's contribution to Global Warming is a myth. Simply 'pseudo science' promulgated by those lacking the intellectual capacity to understand the physics of both meteorology and of thermodynamics. Blindly following a consensus where the public's real agenda is fuelled by a culture of jealousy and envy against those that have worked harder than most to provide themselves with modern essentials and yes, even civilisation’s legally traded comforts. As evidenced by the victimisation of air travellers and SUV or 4 X 4 car owners for example. Blind faith coupled with levels of human arrogance only paralleled throughout history by religious bigotry and fanaticism. The agenda of governments and large corporations is more sinister. To frighten a gullible public into consuming less but at the same time as parting with more money for the privilege!

Proof that contradicts the theories of Global Warming is actively suppressed, both by an hysterical media whose profits no one can deny are dependant upon sensationalism and by transient democratic governments pandering for voters from the ranks of popular opinion. Regrettably even such contrary evidence as does surface is often too esoteric though for unqualified but dangerously misinformed devotees of the Global Warming myth to comprehend.

Persecution, victimisation and vendettas launched as ‘Protecting the Environment’ against challengers to Global Warming myths would be considered both an outrage and certainly illegal if perpetrated anywhere in the civilised world in the name of any other prejudice.

To be a scientist or an engineer that understands the physics requires years of training and experience combined with informed application of facts based upon proven and repeatable scientific experiment. Gaining quedos from ones peers by being seen as ‘Green’ merely requires 'parrot learning' then reciting of the herd mantra.

What 'Environmentalists' cannot or will not answer.

Global Warming fantasists explain that when all the ice from Greenland finally melts, sea levels will rise globally by seven and some even say eight metres, at the same time as claiming forty percent has already disappeared over the period of the last century. Yet there was absolutely no sea level rise accompanying that forty percent penultimate disappearance. How do they explain that? When their hysterical theory depends upon ignorance of the volume of ice and the mass of water, combined with flawed mathematics of the area of the planet’s oceans after such flooding, to say nothing of the crazy notion that Greenland’s mean ice field depth exceeds the height of the tallest mountain on the island continent, then it is hardly surprising they have thus far failed to do so!

Environmentalists flock to the Maldives (presumably on Soya Bean or cow dung powered aircraft!) lamenting that the archipelago is shortly to be inundated, yet Maldives inhabitants, from the country’s leader down, refute seeing any change or loss of land over the last century. Why?

East Anglia in the United Kingdom environmentalists tell us is gradually disappearing into the rising sea. Has no one heard of coastal erosion? We hear less though about falling sea levels throughout the west coast of the British Isles resulting from the action of geophysical plate tectonics as the islands slowly rotate about an horizontal axis.

Mount St Helens exploded on 18 May 1980 and in just a few hours had thrown more ozone depleting gases, particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has during the last two hundred thousand years occupancy of the planet. Yet it is almost never mentioned. Why not?

Whilst pondering over what Mount St Helens did maybe a little attention could be given to what the following fifty or so currently active volcanoes are up to right now as well. Let's put it this way, you've probably seen the red sky at night ('Shepherd's delight' and all that)? Good, because it doesn't come from the exhaust pipe of any 4 x 4 or even the funnels of all the world's super tankers. Red skies were around a long time before Land Rover or Conoco. Red skies result from colour spectrum changes caused by high altitude dust or 'particulates'. The particulates originating to a lesser extent from massive desert dust storms but as these seldom reach high altitudes then mainly from the activities of these:-

Akutan
Arenal
Askja
Avachinsky
Bardarbunga
Batur
Bezymianny
Bulusan
Canlaon
Cerro Negro
Cerro Quemado
Coatepeque
Erebus
Etna
Fogo Caldera
Fuego
Galeras
Gemini
Gorda Ridge
Grimsvotn
Hekla
Ilopango
Izalco
Karymsky
Katla
Kilauea
Klyuchevskoi
Krafla
Lassen
Llaima
Loihi
Merapi
Metis
Pacaya
Parker
Pavlof
Pinatubo
Popocatepetl
Rabaul Caldera
Rincon de la Vieja
Ruapehu
San Miguel
San Salvador
San Vicente
Santa Ana
Santa María
Shishaldin
Spurr
Stromboli
Tacaná
Taupo
Tungurahua
Unzen
Vestmannaeyjar

Collectively these more than 50 babies also emit more ozone depleting gases, particulates and CO2 into the atmosphere in a single day, each day, every day, than mankind has in his total existence! Just as well too because without them our planet would be uninhabitable. By any flora or fauna as we know it. Including of course - us! Any comment anyone?


Chaiten, Chile, 03 May 2008.

If all Arctic ice disappears (and we're not saying it won’t, we're only saying mankind’s efforts aren’t the reason!) then we claim that it would be impossible for sea levels to rise, or even for that matter to fall, by as much as a single drop. We're not going to bother explaining why but anyone too stupid to understand the basic Archimedian physics involved should find an eight year old schoolboy of average intelligence to demonstrate with a tumbler full of water and an ice cube!

Another slightly embarrassing problem for doom merchants is the fact that the ANTARCTIC, which as every schoolboy knows is actually the repository for approximately 70% of all the planet's ice, has actually seen increased ice cover in recent years. Admittedly some 'environmentalist' institutions' websites either haven't woken up to this fact yet or perhaps they are simply thinking that because it's bad 'PR' for their cause, if they ignore it then it might go away. Anyway, maybe if they don't mention it then hopefully not too many people will hear about it!

What measurements are used in studies that indicate Global Warming?

Are the measurement samples truly representative? For example a measurement of mean ambient wet and dry bulb temperature taken at sea level for each day of every day of every year for the past one hundred years at say Greenwich might, just might (although unlikely as one hundred years is such an infinitesimally tiny time period for such a study), begin to indicate a trend. At that location but not necessarily at any other location.

Do similar quality records exist for another couple of hundred thousand or so world locations, all taken on consistently calibrated and certified instruments? Because without them there cannot be any definitive argument. It would be an interesting proof. Particularly as many world locations necessary to provide such factual evidence hadn't even been reached by mankind one hundred years ago! Furthermore the technology for transmitting such measurements by radio, deemed as essential, from locations such as the vast polar and desert regions also did not exist for most of the past one hundred years. In any event the majority of world locations for much of the past one hundred years have been inaccessible due to either war or for political reasons. Many of course are still inaccessible. The rest for the most part have been governed under regimes with absolutely no interest in collecting and collating data. To say nothing of almost total non existence of comprehensive ocean temperature records until the last couple of decades! How can there possibly be even the beginnings of credible evidence? Just because it was 'a bit windy on Bodmin Moor on January 1st this year' does not convince us that the world is heading for catastrophe! As for computer modelling predictions at Mistral we prefer to adopt Fred Polak's viewpoint ~ ''There are no future facts!''

Finally, The sun delivers energy to planet Earth at a mean constant 1,366 Watts per square metre. The vast and awesome (well trillions of times larger than anything mankind is capable of releasing anyway!) powerhouse of geothermal nuclear fusion emits a further paltry 0.075 Watts per square metre. At Mistral we already know what man’s contribution is from nuclear fission and fossil fuel consumption (all ‘renewables' ignored of course as these are anyway ‘Solar’ or in the case of tidal power, mainly 'Lunar'). This is because we’ve been involved as engineers in the power generation and energy industry for forty years but if we tell you then you probably won’t remember. And you need to know and to remember! The figures anyway aren't difficult to find. Just expect to see a lot of '0's after the decimal point once you've calculated the additional gain per square metre!

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

Treehuggers come hither. Save the Planet! WIN up to US$2,000 for your 'cause'! Click on the map image. It will enlarge to reveal a stylised Mercator Projection of planet Earth as found and used in Mistral's energy calculation programs (generally by people that really understand the nature of heat and energy!).


click map to enlarge

Now please think on this. Because it is a fact!

Firstly, please imagine all the fossil fuel, including coal and all types of oil, as refined and used to provide fuel for cars, factories, homes, planes, power stations, ships, trains and every other type of vehicle, that has ever been excavated from the ground and burned by mankind in the whole of his occupancy of the planet. In other words for the last 200,000 years or so as 'modern homo-sapien' up until the present day. Naturally this includes that used in the last century which we appreciate probably amounts to more than was excavated and consumed in the previous 1,999 centuries! Now imagine heaping all of this fossil fuel up into one, single, gigantic cube and placing it on the surface of the planet. Finally, what size 'footprint' or area of the surface of the planet do you think this cube would cover?

As an incentive to encourage you to think about it we are offering a prize. If you can be the first person to find the location, where for a little fun, we have 'placed' this mythical cube on the enlarged Mistral Mercator Projection map then Mistral will send you US$1,000. A little like those 'Spot The Ball' competitions but with a difference. Don't forget this is about all the fossil fuels that mankind has ever burned and which some claim is now effecting global ambient temperatures, mainly through CO2 release!

Here are some clues.

1) It is less than 1 pixel, yes that's right, less than just 1 pixel! Out of the around one million pixels needed to display this map it is smaller than just one of them! So we have had to ENLARGE it to one whole pixel in order to play this little game. To put that into context, if this cube containing all the coal and oil that mankind has ever consumed was real and you flew over it at the typical cruising altitude of 37,000 feet (11,278 metres) of a modern jet airliner, then you would barely be able to identify it on the ground below you! And yet some people actually believe that the carbon dioxide produced by burning just one tiny fraction annually of this already relatively, infinitesimally tiny amount of fossil fuel is going to have an effect on the entire planet! Not only does it not even amount to the proverbial fly on the elephant's arse, it doesn't even amount to a microbe on the fly's arse on that elephant's arse!

2) To make it easier more clues to the answer appear printed on other pages of this website.

3) To make it even easier we can tell you that the cube has been located on an area of land and not of sea.

Bonus Prize Mistral is also offering a bonus prize. If your geographic co-ordinates for this tiny spec on the planet's surface are correct and you also know or possibly can research, using the Internet for example, actually how big (sorry, what we should say is 'how small!) this cube of fossil fuels is then we will double your prize to US$2,000!

Please use the comments box in our feedback form to nominate your co-ordinates (Eg Yakutsk, Russia, 62°5'N, 129°45'E, which incidentally isn't the location, only an example!). Don't forget to leave your name and address.

If you are correct Mistral will send you an internationally redeemable Money Order (Western Union) to the value of US$1,000. If you add the correct* size for the cube as well (# metres X # metres X # metres) then we will double that to US$2,000. We will reserve the right to publish your name along with our congratulations (name only, no address will be published).
*Give or take half a billion cubic metres

PS For those of you unable to even understand the question then please do everyone a favour and focus your pseudo-intellectual campaigning and protesting upon some cause more worthwhile than so called man made Global Warming!

A UK Channel 4 (we know but we were bored!) TV program on 25th May 2008 spent the best part of an hour lamenting how mankind had ruined the planet and we were soon all going to die as a result. All we might add without attempting to include one single scientific or provable fact in support of their hysterically sensational claims. Not that is until one twit stated that whilst the biosphere was naturally stable (not quite true but we’ll forgive him as despite trying he clearly wasn’t all that bright) mankind’s industrial environment wasn’t and was messing things up. He went on to say that the sun delivered over 13,500 more energy than was needed to power every factory, building, home and vehicle on the planet (nearly right but at least he’s got the idea!) and therefore we should instead seek ways of utilising the sun instead of fossil fuel.

We wonder what part of the expressions ‘contradiction in terms’ or ‘I’ve just shot myself in the foot’ he has never quite grasped! Perhaps he missed that day at primary school!

PS The clue is in the figure 13,500!

Footnote

The UK Government announced in February 2008 that a new study into the environmental and economic impacts of biofuels amid rising concern that biofuels could compete with food production, damage the environment and even increase carbon emissions - the reverse of what they are meant to do.


Links you won't easily find elsewhere!