Global Warming -v- Climate Change

I am not a “warmist”, but then nor am I a sceptic. My comments are made on the back of reports I have read, some only half-remembered, but these are my views, not in the least scientific!

I have read a lot over the last couple of years and it strikes me that when anyone announces that global warming is accelerating it makes headlines, especially on the BBC (radio, TV and website).

However, when someone proclaims that overall mean temperatures have not risen since 1998 or whenever, this is consigned to a small link on the website and is not broadcast.

To me, this looks like biased reporting in favour of those who are pushing for action to prevent global warming.

I read somewhere that polar bears were declining “because of global warming”, then a report from one of the foremost experts on polar bear populations stating that one polar bear community was declining, two were increasing and the rest were stable – don’t quote these figures, I am typing from memory as the article has been lost.

So, who do I believe? None of them.

Yes, I believe we are ruining the planet. We are using non-renewable resources far too quickly. We are cutting down the “lungs” of the planet, the forests, which affects carbon dioxide absorption, which in turn may – and I say may – affect weather, which, as far as I can see, is not a good thing.

But, this almost hysterical screaming from some warmists is turning me away from the argument for global warming.

Another problem is that our (the UK’s) present government is pushing the argument for global warming and frankly, after suffering 12years of their rule, I don’t believe anything they say, especially as they are trying to tax us out of existence on the back of the argument.

Yes, I believe that the climate is changing. We have had a run of poor summers in the UK. But climate change happens; it is cyclic. It is not so long ago that Europe was covered in a thick sheet of ice. And before that, it had a sub-tropical climate.

Now we are told the climate is not following the predictions of the computer models. Why not? are the computer models faulty? Or were they just created to reflect what the warmists wanted them to?

Trees, Charcoal and Rain

Once again I read that Africa is suffering because people are cutting trees for fuel and to produce charcoal. Generally, the charcoal production is illegal, but this can be sorted out with a back-hander – no change there then.

From what I have seen and heard on my trips to Kenya, the solar cooker, which can be made for pennies, are very efficient, but do not fit in with the East African psyche, they take too long to cook a meal. From my observations, it seems that Kenyans like to prepare and eat with little or no gap in between. So they need an instant heat source to cook on, wood, charcoal, kerosene or, if they are modern (and can afford it) butane gas.

So, trees will continue to be decimated until an alternative instant fuel is found, that is acceptable to those who have to use it.

You can read an article on the BBC website here

I have been working on methane collector design for a while now and have come up with a version that is easy and cheap to construct, and easy to use.

My contention is that if butane is acceptable, then so is methane. The difference is that methane occurs naturally, and to collect it is a simple matter. It is FREE!

Looking at its use ecologically, burning methane forms water and CO2, which is a good thing. Why? Because methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, so it is far more acceptable to have CO2 floating around rather than methane, isn’t it?

But most people living in rural East Africa are not interested in that, they are too busy surviving.

So, what about the charcoal makers? They will not be happy seeing their livlihood disappearing as people convert to methane for cooking.

So, show them how to make methane collectors, install them and maintain them. Yes, they need maintaining. A 45 gallon methane collector will produce gas for about six months before it needs refurbishing. But, the by-product is fertiliser, just what is needed on a shamba.

So, to recap:

• Methane is free
• Using methane saves trees
• A methane collector produces fertiliser
• Using methane helps to eliminate a potent greenhouse gas that would normally escape to atmosphere.
• Methane is a clean fuel, so there are no particulates to irritate and inflame eyes and lungs.
• Charcoal producers can be easily trained to make, install and maintain methane collectors, so they will not lose their income. In fact, with a little persuasion, maybe they will even promote the use of methane.

Methane can also be used as an alternative to petrol, so it will run a generator or water pump.

What is the next step?

KCIS has produced a working model. We can produce free methane. We are willing to spread the word.

We have contacted various charities and NGOs who are supposed to be interested in saving trees and protecting the water catchment areas. What is their response?

NOTHING!

If you are interested in saving trees in Kenya, contact us. We will work with anyone who is serious about making people’s lives better in Kenya, or even East Africa.

Also published at Baba Mzungu’s blog

Cheap Diesel

I am lucky enough [?] to drive  a diesel-powered car in the UK. It is not powerful, nor is it a recent model, but it gets me from where I am to where I want to be and back again in comfort.

But it drinks diesel like a fish drinks water, mainly because it is fitted with much smaller tyres than it was originally designed for.

So, last Spring, I decided to supplement pump diesel with the contents of my deep-fat fryer. This gives me about 3 litres of clean fuel every two to three weeks. After I have processed it, I mix it with diesel, depending on the ambient air temperature. In the height of the UK Summer, I got away with a 50/50 mix, but in Spring and Autumn, I drop ot back to 25% bio to 75% pump diesel, and in Winter, I use 100% pump diesel.

This is because bio emulsifies at a relatively high temperature and will clog up the works in a typical UK Winter.

However, this would not be a problem in warmer climes, such as Kenya. So when KCIS eventually gets itself organised enough to actually own a vehicle, we will be getting a diesel, and we will run it on a bio-diesel mix.

If we can find a major source of used cooking oil (just how many fast food outlets are there in Nairobi?), we may be able to produce enough to pass on our excess to the likes of KWS, Rhino Ark, the UN (but not for their petrol-guzzling Hummers) and any other organisations running fuel-hungry diesel 4×4s.

It will be a lot cheaper than pump diesel and performance is not compromised.

Why drugs are so expensive

From Daily Nation 12/1/09

The majority of Kenyans cannot afford essential medicines mainly because of unreasonably high profit margins being enjoyed by manufacturers, according to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report published last month in The Lancet.

In a study involving 36 developing and middle-income countries, including Kenya, WHO says manufacturers are making mark-ups of more than 380 per cent. Retailers are said to be making mark-ups of more than 550 per cent.

Drug manufacturers also try to suppress any cheaper or alternative drugs, as these will obviously cut into their profits.

Many drugs are produced by copying natural products (e.g. aspirin) which have been in use for centuries. But the developed world has forgotten how to use natural herbs and plants to cure their ills.

I have been introduced to a product that supposedly cures malaria. A sufferer can usually be on their feet and feeling fine within 24 hours.

But apparently, this product is being suppressed by the FDA. Why? Probably because the drug companies making the recognised cures would lose a lot of money if it were allowed to be introduced into the world market.

And yet, the economies of many African, South American and Asian countries are blighted by workers taking time off because they have contracted malaria.

In Kenya, the treatment costs 2000/-, about £17 UK. As many workers earn only £1 a day (115/-) or less, how do they get  treatment?

I am not saying that this product works. I don’t know. I have seen the written results of trials carried out in various countries, but these were not, on the whole, scientifically controlled, because they had to be carried out “under the radar”.

I would very much like the WHO or the Health Ministry of Kenya to invite me to carry out trials of this product. If it does not work, we have lost very little, but if it does?

A dose of this product would cost about 60/-, which is affordable, even to the poorest of people.

Anyone in the Health Service or WHO Malaria Control in Kenya want to help me to find out if this product works?

If not, I guess the drug cartels have won!

Throwing Our Money at a Non-Problem

The government recently announced that it was going to make sure that every child in Britain will have home broadband access.

At first glance, this possibly sounds like a good idea. But hang on, how many children are not already on the Internet? And if they do not have access, why not?

Two possible answers: the parents choose not to be “connected”, or, they are too poor to afford the £200 or so for a PC and the £10 a month for the connection.

If the latter is the case, the Government’s hand-out of £700 would probably be used on food rather than a PC. Or, the PC could be sold to buy food.

So, how much would this cost? There are variables, of course. Would the £700 be per child or per household? If it is per child, the total cost would be around £10.5 billion, and about half that if it is per household (taking an average of 2 children per household).

Of course, if the payment is only made to those who don’t have broadband access, then the gesture becomes meaningless and the cost can come out of the tea fund.

So, empty gesture, the Government out of touch with the real world, or just another example of mindless spin?

They would be far better off, says Peter Cochrane, to spend the £10.5 billion in deploying a real broadband service in this country – fibre optics.

The estimated cost of rolling out fibre-optics is, yes, you’ve guessed it, £10.5 billion, and it is not as far-fetched as it sounds.

Apparently, 85% of the population already live within 1 km of an installed fibre route.

As Cochrane says, “But unlike many other countries, while the UK government can’t find any money to trigger a national fibre rollout, it can find £5bn to £10bn to throw at a hugely important non-problem!”

Peter Cochrane is an engineer, scientist, entrepreneur, futurist and consultant. He is the former CTO and Head of Research at BT, with a career in telecoms and IT spanning over 40 years. He has also held a number of prominent academic positions including the UK’s first Professor for the public Understanding of Science and Technology.

Still Here!

The “Big Bang” experiment is under way.

Doom-mongers were predicting the end of the World, having even tried to stop the experiment through the courts, but failed, and the Large Hadron Collider was started up (or whatever they do to it), after a short delay (someone had forgotten to wind up the cuckoo clock).

Apparently, this experiment will allow scientists to see how the Universe was formed all those years ago – like I really care. But then, science at this level goes straight over my head.

I am sure that there is a good reason to understand what happened in the Universe a few billion years ago, but I can’t see it.

I try to look forward, and how the Universe was formed is not high on my priority list. After all, once we know, what are we going to do? Try to change things? I hope not!