• Die Londoner Todesmarsch (The London Death March).

      0 comments

    Note the Green Party’s contradictory poster calling for “Carbon cuts not Job cuts.”

    Yesterday, 40,000 of the nation’s most deluded citizens marched through London demanding that David Cameron sign up to yet more regulations, taxes and green scams at a UN organised climate change conference to be held in New York next week. Barack Obama is expected to attend. No doubt he will make one of his pretty speeches.

    The protest march was peaceful and typically noisy. It was attended by such show business celebrities as the actress Emma Thompson and her daughter Miss Gaia Wise (we are not joking).

    Had the organisers consulted the British Gazette we would have suggested that the march should have taken a leaf out the TUC’s book and organise the march to be led by a brass band or two. Why? We hear you ask.

    Because they could have played a variant for brass of Handel’s Saul (HWV 53) – in particular Der Todesmarsch (the Death March).

    Of course such as Emma Thompson might have said, “Good idea” for the lady declared on the day that if [human emissions] of CO2 are not stopped by 2030 “we are [expletive deleted]”

    This of course as British Gazette readers know, is not the reason. The reason why Der Todesmarsch would have been so apt was that these folk were calling for measures that would in fact kill people.

    Which is of course the very opposite of what they want!

    A certain Mr Leo Hickman said to be the chief climate change adviser for conservation charity WWF-UK was quoted thus: “We shouldn’t be scared of decarbonising, it isn’t going to wreck our economy.”

    Well the British Gazette and several reputable scientists have news for Mr Hickman: We SHOULD be scared of decarbonising. Because it WOULD wreak the economy!

    Measurements complied by the Mauna Loa Observatory showed that the atmospheric CO2 level for August 2014 was 397.01ppm (parts per million). It fluctuates slightly. Let us round this figure up to 400 parts per million. Let us now express this as a vulgar fraction; 400/1,000,000 which is 4/10,000 which is 1/2,500. That’s right, one in two thousand five hundred. Remember, this tiny amount is not human produced C02 – it is the total figure!

    Mr Hickman should realise that CO2 is a trace compound in Earth’s atmosphere. That is not to say that this trace compound is not important. In fact this particular compound is of VITAL importance.

    Not because of its abundance as such as Mr Hickman believe but precisely because of its scarcity!

    What Mr Hickman ought to be aware of is that were CO2 around 200 ppm or 1/5,000 we would be very near the point at which life on Earth could not continue.

    This is because were the level a little below this, plants and plankton cannot live and if they die, we die.

    Were in fact 200 ppm ever to become reality we would see a marked decline in plant growth and the world would suffer widespread crop failures and mass famine.

    Were Mr Hickman and his friends to achieve their aim – a world wide increase decrease in human produced CO2 – it would be achieved by increasing energy prices to such levels that it would cause many deaths, not just in developing countries but in the UK where many old folk on low incomes would die of the cold. That is why Handel’s Der Todesmarsch would have been so apt.

    We can thank God (we apologise to Emma Thompson who does not believe in His existence) that the levels are where they are. An increase in CO2 to a level comfortably over 400 ppm would in fact assist those in developing countries as their harvests would improve.

    When presented with a really large coal fired power station, such as Mr Hickman despair! He should not! Mr Hickman claims to care for the world’s poor. The British Gazette will take him at his word. We have no reason to do otherwise.

    We therefore have a suggestion for Mr Hickman. Instead of embracing what he calls de-carbonisation – that is to say increasing people’s electricity bills in order to pay for very expensive methods of generating electricity such as wind turbines and solar panels – of the type the Editor has on his roof – he should do the very opposite. He should call for a programme of building many very large coal fired power stations. These will have the following advantages:

    1. They will produce a great amount of electricity at much lower prices than the lunatic wind turbines and solar panels.

    2. The huge amounts of coal they would burn would add to the CO2 in the atmosphere and help poor farmers in the third world grown more crops.

    Of course Mr Hickman might fret about tornadoes and hurricanes. Well he might but these are NOT caused by the levels of atmospheric CO2.

    Write a comment