In his recent US speech, Prime Minister Trudeau said, "Let’s not live in fear of the world." He is talking about not fearing the influx of migrants. I for one don’t live in fear of the world. Rather, I live in fear of leaders who don’t understand the world and legislate based upon naive ideologies that ultimately fail miserably wherever they are tried.
The migrant problem exists because of failure of leadership in all countries. After meeting with President Obama, they announced a plan that illustrates the problem.
The White House statement said:
“Building on a history of working together to reduce air emissions, Canada and the U.S., commit to take action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world’s largest industrial methane source, in support of achieving our respective international climate change commitments,” “To set us on an ambitious and achievable path, the leaders commit to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, and explore new opportunities for additional methane reductions.”
What does reducing “air emissions” mean? Everything in the air is emitted from somewhere.
Do they intend to reduce oxygen because it is a corrosive gas that causes rust?
Apparently, they don’t realize that CO2 reduction reduces plant growth, which reduces oxygen levels.
Methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the U.S. from human activities and is much more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide.
This is a complete falsehood, carefully worded to sound like the truth by inserting the phrase “from human activities.”
The three major greenhouse gases (GHG) are water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). By volume of GHGs they are, 95 percent, 4 percent and 0.36 percent respectively.
They ignore water vapour by accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumption that the amount of H2O humans produce is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume. They do this because they don’t know how much H2O is in the atmosphere or how much it varies in space in time.
The same is true of methane. They don’t know how much methane is coming from natural sources. They only discovered in 2006 that plants and especially the rain forests are a major source of methane.
In fact, the human portion of atmospheric methane is a fraction of the total.
The claim that methane is “much more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide,” is completely and deliberately misleading.
This refers to the Global Warming Potential (GWP); a necessary deception to maintain the narrative because methane is a fraction of the total GHGs. The charade is exposed by answers to questions on the US Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) website:
Why do GWPs change over time?
EPA and other organizations will update the GWP values they use occasionally. This change can be due to updated scientific estimates of the energy absorption or lifetime of the gases or to changing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that result in a change in the energy absorption of one additional ton of a gas relative to another.
Why are GWPs presented as ranges?
In the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), multiple methods of calculating GWPs were presented based on how to account for the influence of future warming on the carbon cycle. For this Web page, we are presenting the range of the lowest to the highest values listed by the IPCC.
If the numbers were based on physics and real data, they would not change over time.
The focus on industrial methane is purely political just as it was in the 1980s and 90s. Then, methane was identified as the global warming culprit in the attack on cows, especially beef cattle. Leading the charge were animal rights groups and environmental exploiters including Jeremy Rifkin.
The problem is methane levels weren’t increasing, and the IPCC is the source of that information: (Figure 1)
The determination to find a human cause was obsessive and created tunnel vision. A list of targets included:
* Termites: forest clearing in Africa supposedly created more termite habitat; then they discovered their termite numbers were overestimated by a factor of four.
* Beaver: fur industry decline supposedly resulted in decreased trapping, more beaver, and beaver ponds, flooding land and creating methane -- except in the end, the actual numbers and area proved insignificant.
* Cattle: there was an increase in cattle, especially in North America. However, they ignored the parallel decrease in ruminants such as bison, elephants, and others. Those decreases are regrettable, but a fact in proper scientific assessment.
(They also left out the 250 million sacred cows in India, and the increase in Asian rice paddies, which are the second largest source of human-produced methane.)
* Permafrost: global warming was supposedly causing permafrost to melt, thereby releasing more methane -- except Russian and other scientists contradict this claim.
This is all worse than pseudo-science -- it is deliberate deception to create "science" for a political agenda.
Yes, I live in fear, but not of the world. I am scared of uninformed politicians who exploit environmentalism to produce policies based purely on ideology. It is blind faith that fits Mencken’s comment that:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”