Climategate – How Did Climate Change Come To This?

Posted on Tue 11/24/2009 by


This was never about the environment. It was just about the money, and nobody even bothered to check one of the most important things at the root of the whole debate.

My Father in Law just loved his garden. In the 6 years before he passed away, his advancing years made it difficult for him to do the work he so loved. We would visit every Saturday afternoon in the six months around Summer and every second Saturday for the cooler months. I would do the edges, mow the lawns and do what he asked in the garden, and I loved doing it. My good lady wife and her mother would go shopping. After I finished in the gardens, we would talk, sometimes for some hours, something I always looked forward to doing, as he had such wonderful life experience. We would stay for dinner, watch some TV and then go home around 10.30 or so. One night while we were watching TV, one of the persons on the screen made the statement, ‘Money is the root of all evil’, you know the statement, we’ve all heard it so many times. Father immediately corrected that statement. The correct statement is, ‘The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.’ I’ve never forgotten how he picked that up, because those first couple of words provide the correct context, and they have mysteriously disappeared over the years.

Therein lies what is right at the very heart of this whole Climate Change/ Global Warming debate.

The LOVE of money.

We may never really know the single point where this whole debate started from. Many have speculated, but because so many are on board now, it has become an absolute avalanche. Sometime in the 1970’s the argument was actually about Global Cooling. In the 80’s the Warming argument gained strength which continued into the 90’s gaining more strength. After the turn of the Century, it started gaining widespread debate, and in the last two years has become monumentally huge. Along the way, everyone has climbed aboard, and for differing reasons, but most of them centre around the hunger for money.

Why they originally picked on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is something that eludes me. It is the tiniest of trace gases in the overall total environment. It is one element in the overall mix of Greenhouse Gases. (GHG) These GHG are made up mainly of water vapour, and in fact almost all those GHG is that water vapor. The overall content in the whole Atmosphere of CO2 stands now at 388 Parts per million, which is only 0.0388% of the total Atmosphere. That water vapour content is in fact 51 times larger than for CO2. That CO2 is in fact essential for life on Earth. However, the blame has been sheeted home mainly to man made CO2 and by far the largest contributor to that man made CO2 comes from the burning of coal, and from that, the production of electrical power, which in the main comes from the burning of coal. In the U.S. electrical power produced from the burning of coal stands now at around 45%, while in the remainder of the World, that percentage closely approaches 85%.

The crushed coal is burned in very high temperature critical furnaces. This in turn boils water to high pressure steam. This steam then drives a multi stage turbine, which in turn drives a large generator which produces the electrical power.

What is hard to actually believe is just how much coal is burned to do this. Just in the U.S. alone almost one billion tons of coal is burned each year to do this. As each ton of coal is burned, the carbon in it combines with the Oxygen to form CO2. Even harder to believe is that each ton of coal burned produces 2.86 tons of CO2. That’s actual physical tons, so in the U.S. alone, just from coal fired power plants an amount of 2.8 Billion tons of CO2 is emitted each year. A further half a billion tons of CO2 is produced from those Natural Gas fired power plants as well.

From that huge seemingly amount, you would think that those emissions of that much CO2 would be a concern, especially when you add what is produced in the rest of the World, and then taking into consideration that this CO2 total from the generation of electrical power amounts to 33% of the total. The resultant number seems to be so huge, so from that, it might actually look like there is a problem. However what needs to be kept in context is that the overall total in the whole Atmosphere is still only 0.0388%.

That figure of 388 PPM and 0.0388% of the total atmosphere is always one that is difficult to comprehend, so imagine it like this, and this is an actual representation of what it really is. Look around you at the room you are in while you read this. Consider that whole room as the total Atmosphere. The total content of CO2 in the Atmosphere amounts to the same size as a small pencil eraser in the overall size of the room. The amount we actually add to that from every source on the surface of the whole Earth each year amounts to the same as for the tip of the lead on one pencil. So. Room. Eraser. Pencil tip. That is the whole context of this argument. That pencil tip we are told is what is contributing to what we are told is catastrophic Global Warming.

How can that be so?

At many times during the history of our Planet, that level of CO2 has been higher, and considerably higher sometimes 17 to 30 times higher than that. In fact, during the last major Ice Age which lasted 10,000 years the level of Atmospheric CO2 was in fact 17 times higher than it is now, so if it is contributing NOW to Global Warming, why was it so high during that Ice Age?

What was needed now by those who stumbled onto this in the first place was to somehow find a way to prove what was originally only a speculative idea.

From that point onwards, this debate has snowballed.


Science looked for a way to prove it, and to do that, they needed money for that Research. That money came in the form of a large Government grant. So they did their Research. It was not really going to help if at the end of that Research they couldn’t find at least something to show that money was worth being granted to them. So, figures were fudged. Anything that disagreed with what they wanted to show was pushed into the background, ignored, and not mentioned. having now shown the money was worth it, they then asked for more to further investigate.

Can you see a pattern forming now?

So much so, that amounts totalling hundreds of billions of dollars have been directed to funding for research into the correlation between CO2 emissions and Global Warming. Along the way, because temperatures had in fact started to cool, then the argument became Climate Change, just a subtle change of title.

At each stage, the idea was to highlight those points that agreed with what they wanted and to strictly ignore those that disagreed. That way, the money in grants would keep flowing, and flow it did, virtual rivers of Government money into research. You only had to put Global Warming in the application for a grant to virtually assure funding came your way. Then after they produced their results, they did the same again.

Research abounded, as did positive results till today we find that their is such a body of those results, we are now told that ‘The Science Is Settled’.

Politics then became involved, because this then gave them a plank to run on, by saying that only they could form policy to save future generations. The politics then fed off the Science in an ever expanding feeding frenzy. Give Science more money, get positive finding, and then tell the people that you are the only ones who can save them.

From the Politics, the United Nations then got in on the act, and in fact, they have been in on this for a long time now. To them, this was a way they could enhance their stature, almost in the same manner as did those politicians. Part of their original plank of that original Kyoto protocol was that those Countries already developed should in fact pay all the costs of those Countries they deemed as still Developing. Less than 25 Countries considered already developed will pay ALL the costs of the remaining 160 Countries, as well as introducing legislation in their own Countries to limit emissions, cut them back, and introduce a charge on those emissions. The UN also asked that those Developed Countries, as part of their ‘duty‘ in the form of repayment for contributing so heavily to those emissions for all those years, then they should pay the UN what also amounts to perhaps hundreds of Billions of dollars, which they, the UN would then distribute to those poorer Countries, minus their commission of course.

Renewable energy then got involved, saying that they could produce power that would be CO2 free. They then got on the Government money bandwagon too, as more Billions of dollars now flowed to them in the form of subsidies to construct their plants.

On and on it went, all feeding off each other.

Now we find that in fact those Scientific results have indeed been ‘fudged’ massaged, ignored, deleted.

Everything that has come since stems from that. The fudging of those figures to suit their premise, and gain access to further Government money.

So then, what was the thing that no one even bothered to check in the first place?

We actually cannot do without those coal fired power plants. I have gone to intricate detail to explain just how those coal fired plants have no realistic replacement, other than for nuclear powered plants, which also have the weight of opinion going against them as well.

Those renewable plants that emit no CO2 cannot ever replace coal fired power.

They in fact abjectly fail at every point.

Wind and Both forms of Solar power fail miserably in supplying a constant and reliable power that only coal and nuclear can actually supply. Wind is running at around 20% power delivery efficiency. Solar Photovoltaic (Solar PV) is running even less efficiency that that. Concentrating Solar (Solar Thermal) is running at around 25 to 30% and the only way it can supply power for the full 24 hours in a day is to have backup generation from the burning of natural Gas, emitting CO2. In fact the three or four large plants in this category, have a capacity only 10% that of a large coal fired plant, and to deliver power for the full 24 hours, require that Natural Gas backup to be operating between 8 and 12 hours of every day, emitting up to 850 tons of CO2 each day. So, even the renewable plant looked at as the way of the future still emits large quantities of CO2. Wind can deliver power for around 5 hours of each day, shown dramatically by the whole German ‘fleet’ of 18,000 wind towers struggling to provide 20% of their total power. Solar PV delivers its power for around 4 hours of each day. The solar factor of Concentrating Solar can only deliver its part for 8 to 10 hours at the absolute best.

So, these renewable plants cannot even approach what is already being delivered from coal fired sources.

They rely on huge amounts of Government subsidies at the construction end, their power is hugely expensive, and they also get Government subsidies at the power delivery end as well. No entrepreneur in his right mind could afford to sink his own money into this without those massive subsidies from Governments. They are notoriously unreliable, and last only half the time in years as one of those large coal fired power plants.

As to coal fired power. Well they have now become a source of money also. Governments will charge them for each ton of CO2 they emit, and it’s a captive target. They have to keep operating because there is nothing to replace them with.

See now how this whole argument has been distilled down to just one thing.


Everybody is now climbing aboard for the endless amounts of money to be made from all of this, and to make sure that money keeps flowing, we are told that the Science is settled.

Science. Politics. Renewable Power. Governments. The UN. Even individuals are cashing in on it.

All of them are making huge amounts of money from this, and if anything gets in the way of that, then it just has to be shot down.

And what do we find now?


It’s all been based on what can realistically be called ‘Fraud’.

Think again very carefully.

Room. Eraser. Pencil tip.