 |
 |
Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming
Another major man-made climate change advocate recants
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate - rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans - completely reversing his position.
Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
In an article for The Australian newspaper, Evans highlights why he was so keen to jump on board the man-made explanation without there being any clear conclusion as to what was driving temperature increases in the period from the end of the 70’s to 1998.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
“The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?” writes Evans. “Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”
“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming,” he concludes.
Evans points out that the “greenhouse signature” that would indicate CO2 emissions are driving temperature increases - “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics” - which would be evident if climate change was man-made, is simply non-existent.
“If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming,” he writes.
Evans highlights data collected from satellites positioned around the globe that indicates temperatures have dropped about 0.6C in the past year - back to 1980 levels. Such figures are complimented by anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern - China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.
Evans also cites historical climate change and the fact that CO2 does not cause, but in fact lags behind temperature increase by as much as 800 years.
“The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect,” he writes.
“The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion,” writes Evans.
Evans warns that the insistence on behalf of the man-made advocate establishment that “the debate is over,” despite the fact that a CO2 link to climate change “was merely asserted, not proved,” and the glee with which governments have adopted measures to fight global warming under this false assumption, will cause economies to be wrecked and as temperatures cool further, authorities will have to face charges of “criminal negligence” for deliberately lying to the public about climate change.
Evans’ public reversal of his position arrives on the back of two peer reviewed scientific papers, one of which documents how C02 emissions in fact cool the planet’s temperature and another that shows how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
As we reported last week, the world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.
Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.
Get your ad SEEN by
our millions of monthly visitors AND
support the Infowar. CLICK
HERE for our advertising rates.
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
73 Responses to “Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 am
What a fitting picture…double think at it’s finest
Show snow and ice and whine about global warming.
People are as stupid now as they were in the stone age.Just educated way past their intelligence.Now they can argue in “stoooopid” , not just think it.
I think I am going to heave at the next dip stick that says carbon is at fault for something that does not exist
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:23 am
Top rocket scientist is no climate scientist, just like a GP is no heart surgeon.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 am
Interesting how the UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists), the UK Royal Society, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(, the Scientic American, EPA Officials and ex-National Park Employees and the Sierra Club, all are wrong because Mr. Robert Evans says the debate is over. My advise is to read books and not articles like this. I’m sure Mr. Evans would welcome the Bush Admistration, Exxon Mobile and BP Shell.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
Jon by that reasoning he should not have been the one to write/study the case for Global warming in the first place. As its says in the article
“Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 and he wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.”
If you are to say he is not qualifed now, you should take it he was not qualifed to give the backing to Global Warming in the first place. At least now he has come out with the truth. Carbon credits make not one bit of fucking difference to Global Warming, it just creates another tax for the people. But as usual the sheeple just eat the shit up…
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 am
OK Sideomeire. You should research more than Alex Jones articles! Dr Richard Evans is a Principal Hydrogeologist employed by Sinclair Knight Merz Consultants. WAKE UP! Sinclair Knight Merz works with clients FOR PROFITS to plan, design, build and integrate complex information management systems, with an aim to enhancing our client’s operational efficiency, management effectiveness, and decision-making and planning capabilities. Sinclair Knight Merz has a demonstrated track record in Security consulting. Encompassing the operations of CCD Australia, our 30 years of extensive practical experience provides us with a clear understanding of security requirements across a range of market areas and specialised facilities.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 am
Sideomeire WAKE UP! Dr. Richard Evans works for Sinclair Knight Merz for PROFITS! Sinclair Knight Merz offers a broad range of services across the power sector. We offer management and technical consultancy, engineering design and management services for power project development, operation, power delivery engineering, due diligence and asset valuation. We have completed numerous assignments as Lenders and owners Engineer relating to EPC contracts.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 am
Sideomeire WAKE UP! Dr. Richard Evans works for Sinclair Knight Merz for PROFITS! Sinclair Knight Merz offers a broad range of services across the power sector. We offer management and technical consultancy, engineering design and management services for power project development, operation, power delivery engineering, due diligence and asset valuation. We have completed numerous assignments as Lenders and owners Engineer relating to EPC contracts.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
For the love of… how can anyone still think this CO2 GW scam has any merit whatsoever… Richard? The evidence is overwhelming. Its a scam. There is NO EVIDENCE at all for the opposite view… NONE ! Now what does that tell you about UCS, the UK Royal Society, the IPCC, the Scientic American, EPA Officials and ex-National Park Employees and the Sierra Club? They are a bunch of politically driven liars and fools. Bit like Richard (the turd)!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 am
All weather on this planet is caused by the effects of the sun warming the planet. That’s Meteorology 101. This whole man made global warming scam is such a joke that I can’t believe how ignorant the average individual is to the world that they live in. Ask the average person why the sky is blue or what causes it to rain and they’re clueless. Barometric pressure, humidity, lapse rate, dew point, condensation nuclei, you name it - people have no idea of all the different elements associated with weather.
And the funny thing about this whole argument is that the people that know the least about weather seem to be the biggest supporters of the man made global warming concept. The sun is the engine that drives ALL weather on this planet, that can’t be denied. So if things are warming up, the first place you should look is the sun. What type of solar cycle have we been in lately, and how does it compare to previous records? If the sun has been putting out more energy then I would expect the temps on the earth to go up (as well as temps on other planets in the solar system) and if it is putting out less energy I would expect just the opposite. Seems pretty simple. That’s because it is.
I work at a famous aeronautical university where we train aeronautical engineers, pilots, astronauts, aerospace engineers, and a multitude of other “air and space” professions. I also have a BS in aeronautical science from this same university. The majority opinion of all the professors and faculty here is that man made global warming is all about government funding. The scientists that go along with the fraud are rewarded with government grants and contracts. Those that don’t are snubbed and marginalized for their failure to “go along” with the politically correct science being pushed by the UN and other government bodies that have an agenda of their own. In return for using taxpayer money to line the pockets of scientists that help push this agenda forward, government officials expect to line their pockets with taxes generated to “combat” the greatest threat to the planet that the world has ever seen. Be afraid! Be very afraid! It’s the politics of fear and it’s been used very successfully for thousands of years.
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
That quote is from Hermann Goering but it epitomizes the technique used by the U.N. and it’s adherents in pushing this new war on global warming. Everyone should just go along with what all the big brother advocates say and start paying their carbon taxes so the politicians can wage their noble war on global warming. The Earth is flat and all those that refute this are heretics!
Come on people. Let’s not allow the government to dictate science again. History has shown where that gets us.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 am
Most sheeple who believe im global warming don’t understand the whole justification the hoaxers are pursuing, which is that CO2 creates a layer in the atmosphere reflecting sunrays. Instead they think of it as simply “hot exhaust” from exhaust pipes and smokestacks and fires and think since these are hot exhaust gases, its logical they cause warming. There have been quite some cartoons in major newspapers who absolutely pushed this idea, for example: polar bears sweating on melting ice caps with evil carbon belching cars idling near them etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 am
The people not sheeple that read other than mainstream media all know this and are resisting. However, the sheeple will only learn once they have been fleeced, and led to the slaughter and sold as mutton.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 am
I agree with Alex Jones on just about everything, except global warming.It seems like it is just common sense that we can’t keep cutting down our carbon sinks, trees. There is dead spots in the ocean, I am in Oregon right now, that used to be a rain forest!! It is just simple ballance, that’s all. On our TV show, JACK HERER TV VIDEOFREEEARTH.COM I talk all the time about Al Gores CO2 tax. I do not buy into the big scam, but I see a major need for HEMP!! With all the love in the world, I challenge this dis-info!!! You all can reach me Myspace.com/chuckhemp
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
It is not just sheeple who dont understand!! You can’t forget the many, many “scientists”, ecologists, biologists, etc. who have been told these things by their professors and consider them the word of God. Not to mention, they continue to teach these theories in their own classrooms. They are the ones who will not be swayed. These sheeple have a VESTED interest and take an attack on their precious global warming personally. They are just people and I assume the % of sheeple to truther is about the same.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Al Gore and his Nobel friends, the Rothschilds, can get lost!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
All life on Earth is CARBON based - CO2 taxes are a scam - END OF!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
what benefits would the elite gain from “making up” global warming? they are the owners of immense chains of production and capital which emit carbon at every step of economic activity.
i have heard the hypothesis that climate change is an pretext to institute the control grid - but, in my opinion, a pretext which also could encourage the public to perceive major economic interests/drivers (ie long distance shipping, automobiles, energy consumption, mindless consumerism, industrial agriculture) as dangerous would not be their first choice.
as i see it, most of the elite has been convinced that climate change is real, and now they are engaging in a systemic campaign to make sure that they are protected and prepared for the coming future. i also see that they gain from creating a fake popular movement that is controlled - that way, they control the debate about what should be done.
instead of debating subsidizing small scale organic agriculture (which actually absorbs carbon into the soil) instead of toxic corporate monoculture (which cause carbon to be emitted), or other solutions which could actually benefit ordinary people and harm corporate interests, the controlled media make us think that the only solutions are the ones which benefit the existing power structure.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
I’m so sick of the global warmers. I’m here in Los Angeles and the last couple of days I’ve been cold. Hello, Los Angeles cold in the middle of summer. How is that global warming?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 am
The population of every species on Earth is intimately connected to food supply. Double the food supply and the population explodes no matter what species you study. Trees live on CO2. Theoretically shouldn’t this help trees thrive? Won’t the increased Oxygen trees exhale balance it proportionately?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Mark:
Bravo for your excellent and informed opinion on this subject.
You are very correct in pointing out that the less a person actually knows about climatology, the more likely they are to be duped by the Global Warming hysteria. And that also goes for scientists — among scientists as a whole, the climatologists are those LEAST likely to agree with the theory of ‘human caused Global Warming’, because climatologists KNOW BETTER about this subject.
70% of science funding in the USA comes from the US military — which means that both the integrity of scientific objectivity and the opinions of scientists are warped through the political lens of the US government’s agenda, because the US government is literally the ‘boss’ of most scientists in the USA.
The fatal flaw in the theory of ‘human caused Global Warming’ is that it uses data drawn from a very limited span of time — the past one or two hundred years (at most), which is not nearly a long enough period of time by which to reasonably evaluate climate change.
To reasonably evaluate climate change, you must look at data covering a span of many thousands of years, not just a few decades, or even a few hundred years.
The Vostok ice core data clearly shows that the current global warming is part of a natural cycle in which global temperatures always peak at the close of a warm period between Ice Ages; the data shows that this has occured in a regularly repeating cycle for the past several million years. The Vostok ice core data also shows that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, but that instead CO2 levels rise IN RESPONSE to rising temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....-petit.png
I began studying climatology about twenty years ago as a part of my independent research into human prehistory, because natural climate change has had a profound effect on human prehistory.
BTW, variations in the sun’s heat output, such as the eleven-year sun spot cycle, ARE NOT regarded by most climatologists as the cause of long-term climate change. Sun spots and known variations in solar output are neither powerful enough or long enough in duration to cause long-term climate change. Solar output is understood to be relatively steady-state, which is why asteroid or meteor impacts, increased vulcanism, and other processes (rather than solar heat variation events) are employed to explain mass extinctions such as that of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
The prevailing theory of long-term climate change among climatologists is based on the Milankovich cycles, which pertain to three earth-solar relationship cycles: first, the degree of the earth’s tilt; second, the occilation, or ‘wobble’, of the earth that causes Precession; and third, the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun. The Milankovich cycles, which recur with mathematically predictable regularity, effect the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth during various epochs of time, spanning many thousands of years.
The reason that the Milankovich cycles are the prevailing theory of long-term climate change is because the Milankovich cycles, ice core data, sea sediment data, and the geologic record ALL AGREE on both the pattern and the timing of recurrent cycles of prehistoric climate change going back at least three million years.
And finally, what the combined data of the Milankovich cycles, ice core data, sea sediment data, and the geologic record show us is that the current global warming is part of a recurrent natural cycle in which global temperatures ALWAYS PEAK sharply just before descending rather sharply into the frigid conditions of another Ice Age. What people on earth REALLY need to be most concerned about now is not Global Warming, but the imminent and inevitable return of the coming Ice Age.
Global Warming hucksters such as Al Gore are leading the world down entirely the wrong path as regards global climate change.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
“I agree with Alex Jones on just about everything, except global warming.It seems like it is just common sense that we can’t keep cutting down our carbon sinks, trees.”
WE NEVER SAID WE WANT TO CUT DOWN TREES! GEEZ… PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. IN FACT GLOBAL WARMING ADVOCATES HAVE CALLED FOR CUTTING DOWN TREES AS WE HAVE DOCUMENTED. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES BEFORE MAKING A COMMENT.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
There is a difference between saying global warming is a scam and wanting to deforest the planet. In fact, deforestation is one of the major environmental crises being ignored while the global warming scam hogs the headlines. What’s next? If you question global warming you want to kill pandas? Please have some discernment.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
the snow man melted! you need more proof?
don’t worry. if global warming is a hoax then there is always bird flu or the bird flu vaccinations will kill us for sure. they got us all dead about a half dozen ways lol
in the meantime we keep living our lives
and it is just a matter of courtesy to bring our vehicles toxic emissions down as close to zero as possible.
i mean smog is not a hoax
and if you run your car in your closed garage long enough you will die.
and besides it is so unnecessary.
people are having their nitrous and carbon emissions go down towards zero from installing Water4Gas
oh, btw, it improved my gas mileage by 110% also!
GARKO
http://mywater4gasengine.com
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
His name is Dr David Evans, not Richard Evans..
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
leila:
You ask intelligent questions and you make interesting points. I shall here attempt to address them.
The US government/Israeli Mossad perpetration of the 9/11 attacks were motivated by a lust for power, conquest, and domination, but they were also motivated by greed for profits — for example, the insider trading in ‘put options’, Silverstein’s insurance settlement, the Iraqi oil, and huge profits for the Military/Industrial Complex and the products and services of ’security’ providers (such as Blackwater and the Homeland Security boondoggle).
The Global Warming scam also has its profiteers, including Al Gore, who has heavily invested in a firm that brokers ‘carbon credits’. The allotment of ‘carbon credits’ will favor existing industrial giants and monopolists, while handicapping their competition. Developed nations will be favored over poor nations, and within nations that institute ‘carbon rationing’ requirements for individual citizens (the UK and USA are planning to implement such schemes), the rich will be favored over the poor.
Under a national scheme of ‘carbon credits’, the poor and middle classes will be required to make sacrifices, while the wealthy will continue living their lives of privilege with little, if any, restrictions. The psuedo-environmentalist dogma of ‘Global Warming’ provides yet another excuse for the ruling elite to exploit and manipulate ordinary citizens, and to exert the dominance of the ‘haves’ over the ‘have nots’, both in business and in everyday life.
leila, you wrote that:
“as i see it, most of the elite has been convinced that climate change is real, and now they are engaging in a systemic campaign to make sure that they are protected and prepared for the coming future.”
Consider this:
The United Arab Emirates is the sixth wealthiest nation in the world, and its city of Dubai is currently engaged in a massive building spree. A great many of the ultra-expensive building projects in Dubai are being constructed at sea level — and many of them on specially-constructed artificial islands.
http://www.dubai-architecture.info/DUB-GAL1.htm
The ultra-wealthy sheiks and financiers of Dubai, and the world-class, international stable of top engineers that they have employed for their construction projects, are obviously NOT AT ALL concerned about the rising sea levels predicted by Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Are the policy planners and construction moghuls of Dubai simply ignorant of Al Gore and his dire warning of rising sea levels due to Global Warming? Not likely — in January of 2008 the UAE hosted the the Abu Dhabi World Future energy summit, where the featured guest speaker was Global Warming cheerleader Prince Charles of Britain, who appeared at the meeting in the form of a high-tech hologram, as Al Gore had previously done at the Japan Live Earth Concert.
BTW, not to be outdone by its sister-city of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, which hosted the Abu Dhabi World Future energy summit with guest speaker Prince Charles, has now embarked on its own sea-level construction campaign to rival that of Dubai.
So, if the ultra-wealthy oil sheiks of the UAE and their world-class engineers are not really worried about Global Warming, why should you be?
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Gregory:
Please understand that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. According to the data of the Volstok ice cores, it may always peak before the resumption, but that doesn’t mean that every time it peaks sharply, there will be entering an Ice Age.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so why don’t you get off it?
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Yet more anti-scientific lies.
Firstly any “scientist” that calls for a “public debate” about the “causes of global warming” should not be believed even if he tells you the sky is mostly blue, and grass mostly green.
Seriously, does anyone here think the same public that did things like vote for George Bush, can be trusted with SCIENCE? Hell no!
Secondly:
“The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is not a hot spot 10km up. That effect is a predicted consequence of surface warming, whether from greenhouse or the sun.
The signature of greenhouse warming is stratospheric cooling. Which is what we’re seeing. Which is why Evans doesn’t mention it.”
As I said, don’t believe a word liars like this say. If you want the truth about what this “scientist” has claimed, visit:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi.....nce_16.php
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Another thing - someone pointed out that Evans is NOT a climate scientist, at which point another commenter said that if he was not qualified now, then he shouldn’t have been involved with Australian Greenhouse Office’s work.
That would be a valid argument, IF, the Australian government hasn’t spent the last decade or mor trying to IGNORE, DOWNPLAY, and otherwise DENY global warming.
The number 1 way governments try to handle issues like this that they are resisting is to INTENTIONALLY put incompetent people in charge. So THAT is why they would hire an Electrical Engineer to consult on global warming.
But even if that is NOT the case, what this person was hired to do is NOT study climate change, but rather to set up regulations for monitoring CO2 emissions - you know the kind of things electricity plants have to do, and the kind of thing an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER would have some expertise in.
Monitoring CO2 output is VASTLY different from studying what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere.
This is the only way the liars and deniers can “argue” any more. Get people who sound impressive (and whose career is in industries affected by cuts to CO2 emissions like say an Electrical Engineer) but who really have no scientific background in the fields they attempt to sound knowledgeable in.
Why is that? If there are all these CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who disagree, how come THEY never say so?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
For the simple minded who do not research I offer a simple rule of thumb, when side A ask side B to an open debate and side B refuses then side A is telling the truth. The alarmist/warmest are followers and parrot what the majority believe. I make money on this scam yet no way believe any of it, it is pure politics.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
@Rick
Utter bollocks, my friend. SCIENTISTS who call for a “public debate” on “the causes of global warming” are the ones whose SCIENTIFIC arguments don’t pass muster - so instead they resort to popularity contests.
After all, THEY have all the propaganda mouthpieces, and we are left trying to decide who is telling the truth - when the reality is the VAST MAJORITY of people wouldn’t recognise real science if they were slapped in the face with the studies!
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Off topic, but I’ve noticed this board has a weird way of posting comments - if you view by page, all comments are visible, but if you view all, the most recently posted comments is not visible until someone else posts.
Very strange.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Just so we know what we are talking about; trees “produce”93% of the Oxygen in the atmo-sphere,the oceans 3%.The trees allso distribute the rain-water and holds the soil and “eats” the carbon.It allso dampens the storms. Now, if we cut down the trees we cut down our own oxygen-supply and die;mainly because we would rather use them to make paper, filled with lies,propaganda- and propaganda,again. If there was only 1% more oxygen, fires could not be stopped, and 1% less and we cannot live. So please keep your hands of nature, you (politicians) are not competent but ignorant about the consequenses of your tinkering.Nature is too delicate for the chimp to mess with.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
yea,of course. CO^2 gas is usually HEAVIER than other gasses in air. Think about dry ice fog as it hugs the ground. LOL
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
gregory-
as far as i am concerned, powerholders have consistantly shown themselves to be quite capable of immensely shortsighted and foolish actions, such as building new buildings at sea level. most oil producing nations have not ratified kyoto because they have a vested interest in promoting the idea that there is nothing wrong with continuing to burn gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_debate
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled ‘Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air’,[162] that criticizes ExxonMobil for “underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry” and for “funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue.” In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups[163] though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.[164]
i completely agree with you that the current mainstream “debate”/dicussion of global warming is a sham - first dominant groups in society did everything they could to prevent action on climate change, (because it was threatening to them) and now they are cynically manipulating people’s well founded desires for action into a self-serving power grab. like always, the only actions they are willing to take are the ones that they benefit from. this way, they can convince the people that they are “doing something” while in fact mostly doing nothing but making sure that the crisis will be very very profitable to them.
a grassroots movement demanding real, systemic change to address the root causes of climate change (the structure of the global economic system) would be the worse thing they could imagine. imagine drought stricken farmers and flooded refugees banding together to expropriate the wealth of exxon mobil et al for their role in perpetuating the crisis!
now real, non-coopted environmentalists (ie PEOPLE who understand we are part of a bigger web of life that we need to respect and take care of) have to waste their energy fighting bullshit non-solution schemes like a global carbon tax/ emissions trading/ carbon offsets. this is really too bad, as most of the things that will actually reduce emissions - like shifting towards local economic networks, local sustainable food production, getting out of the consumer economy, moving towards low tech, self-sufficiant (or regionally self-sufficiant)lifestyles, reducing energy consumption, changing our conception of our relationship to the land - also reduce the power that the globalist cabal wields over our day to day lives, and would prepare us to resist their plans for global domination much more effectively.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Never explains how so much hot air can come out of so many mouths.
C’est le vie!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
First off, his first name is David, not Richard. Second, he has been thoroughly debunked as a flat earther when it comes to climate change. He is also thoroughly nuts.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228
No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.
Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.
Evans also published a “background briefing” (pdf) document for the Australian chapter of the Lavoisier Group, a global warming “skeptic” organization with close ties to the mining industry.
“I am not a climate modeler”
From 1999 to 2006 Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says (pdf) that “[he] know[s] a heck of a lot about modeling and computers,” he states clearly that he is “not a climate modeler.”
Background
David Evans lives in Australia and gained media attention after an article he wrote titled, No Smoking Hot Spot was published in The Australian in June, 2008.The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.” Evan’s claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
According to his bio, Evans claims to be a ‘Rocket Scientist’ and one article claims that he is a ‘Top Rocket Scientist.’ While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.
Evans also claims to be “building a word processor for Windows.” DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Watson, Jones, Rivero, Rense, and other “Libertarians” are really giving 9/11 Truth and the Police State Truth a bad name. And you wonder why Progressives and Liberals don’t take you guys seriously. Watson IMO, is a paranoid, with Environmentalists, Feminists, Vegetarians, Gays, Hippies, Beatniks, and Socialists as the “Enemy”, while Free Market advocates are “Friends”. Concentrate on 9/11 and Police State, and leave social issues and science to people who understand them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
@badkarmakaze
The scientists who don’t want their theories to be proven full of holes don’t ALLOW them into the light of the public eye. More and more of the so called ‘concensus’ is falling apart everyday. It’s not even debatable that 1% +/- of CO2 emissions are man created, and that little 1% aint squat. In the last several hundred thousand years, levels have been much higher, and we didn’t cause THAT, and the planet still survived. Even the ‘vast majority’ of the people can be fooled, because they foolishly allowed a ‘consensus’ and a consensus does not fact make- to fool them. Now the holes are getting bigger and bigger in this farce and that’s why the MAD DASH to implement a tax on breathing. Sheesh.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
@karma
He’s also the guy that Australia considered good enough to have written the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
So, what you think, he’s not good enough now to say he disagrees with the thing he signed on with prematurely in the first place? Boy you guys love someone when they agree with you, but the minute they don’t tow the proverbial party line- off with their heads!
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Karmakaze:
You’ve given us some political arguments in favor of the human-caused Global Warming theory, but you haven’t argued Global Warming on its own terms because you don’t understand it. You rely on ‘experts’ to tell you what to think.
You need to understand that most climatologists don’t claim that Global Warming is caused by human activity. Maybe a lot of scientists do, but most of them are not climatologists. And don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with the theory of human caused Global Warming is a right winger or a lover of industry. You won’t find anyone who despises Capitalism, pollution, and fascism more than I do.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
The political ‘green’ movement is of the far right, not far left. Many casual greens jumped on the bandwagon ages ago, thinking they were sticking it to ‘the man’. Now some of the smarter ones, like the scientist above, are jumping ship as they come to realise that the ‘climate change’ meme is a lie designed to serve big business and big government, the very opposite of what they originally hoped and believed.
Who would waste time arguing the science of ‘global warming’ anyway, when it has always been apparent from the form of the propaganda that science had nothing to do with the movement one way or the other. To put it another way, if you knew a child abuser was using selling ice-cream as a cover, would you waste time debating him over the best flavour to buy? Would you debate with a member of a US government death squad that killing innocent people was evil?
Reject the excuse, and reject the proposed action without debate, because you know there was nothing honest about the ‘global warming’ con in the first place. And do so without guilt, since the people found here and elsewhere with similar political outlook, are more likely to respect the environment, and take a smarter and more responsible attitude to life in the first place.
The ‘global warming’ con plays on guilt most of all, like an old time fire and brimstone ‘preacher’. Guilt as illustrated by the australian kid that went mad, thinking his own water consumption would lead to a world drought. His mental state is extreme, but of exactly the same character as all those ordinary people that believe in Human created ‘global warming’.
Of course, you can be foolish enough to think fighting fire with fire will work at this time, but the public is not sensitive to the niceties of scientific debate, and will continue to be influenced by the jewish owned/controlled mainstream media, media that will continue pushing the same lies until told otherwise.
So the battle will not be won in the press or on TV. No, the battle has to be fought at the level of individuals, us. The best way is to know of the history of previous environmental cons, and discuss them with people. The lie about the coming ice-age in the 70’s is an excellent place to start, because many adults of an age can recall the documentaries and dramas that pushed that lie back then.
Actually, such fear mechanisms can be shown to be common methods of population mind control across the ages, and in many different cultures. Ours appear ’scientific’ because of our education. Others have been political, religious, etc, and have seemed just as real to their targets at the time.
Once again, never debate with a door-to-door salesman, but shut the door in their face upon identification. Teach others to do the same by showing how the sales patter these people employ has nothing whatsoever to do with the product, but reflects the best psychological methods known to make a sale.
PS we won’t win. They are already in all the schools across the world, brainwashing the kids. The neat thing about ‘global warming’ is the kids are told “your moron parents are to blame”, and kids eat up anything that puts the beat-down on their parents. By the time the kids are old enough to have a stake in society, and thus suffer terribly because of the new rules, the next generation is getting the brainwashing.
In the future, extreme rules controlling the individual based on crap like ‘carbon footprints’ will seem as ‘natural’ as income-tax. It will not then matter upon what lies or pseudo science or propaganda the new laws were introduced.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I have this uncontrollable urge to grab a can of pop, shake it vigorously, and open it up outside…
Kiss my ass, Gore!
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
How now are we to understand this ? Now it’s increasing CO2 levels leading to Global Cooling ?
Combining this with what Gregory Fegel is saying, that the Vostok ice cores reveal that an Ice Age is ahead of us regardless (of course) of what we do, should we therefore conclude that the action to take is to not only withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere but also to STOP pulling gas, oil and coal out of the ground as the severity of the Ice Age might thereby be somewhat ameliorated ?
Governments are going to have one of the hugest blows to their credibility to rank with any to date, having pushed carbon taxes regardless of the evidence that our own contribution is too small to matter, and also that it is unclear whether larger contributions from natural sources have a warming or a cooling effect.
The control of the debate will slip from govt and corporate hands to cold astronomic explanations that variations in solar output and in earth’s rotation on its axis, in combination with the not exactly circular earth’s revolution around the sun, are things which have always been and about which we can do nothing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 am
As I understand it, from a very simplistic point of view CO2 exists as a trace gas in the atmosphere measured in parts per million. Water vapour is vastly much more plentiful measured in parts per hundred. Man’s contribution to overall CO2 is so tiny that it is less than 2% of the whole CO2 present. Which also means that the increase from 200 parts per million to 360 parts per million has been a mostly natural occurrence. MOST of that increase has NOT been created by man’s activity.
Additionally as I understand it, water vapour is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than is CO2 as well as being hundreds of thousand’s of times more plentiful.
This means that as a simple analogy, The climate is represented by a see-saw balance. A large slightly variable weight on one end of the balance represents the sun and its effects. On the other end are the greenhouse gasses represented by a mouse and 20 elephants. The mouse represents CO2. The hair on the mouse’s back is the equivalent of man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. The elephants represent water vapour in the atmosphere. Additionally there are thousands of different sizes and weights of sliding weights continuously moving along the scales that represent clouds cover, vegetation densities, variations in the Ocean currents, and thousands of other natural variabilities.
Now what the global warming cult are telling us is that the growth of hair on the mouse’s back is sufficient to tip the whole scale and it is not the variability of the huge weight on the other end (the sun), nor the movement of the elephants or the thousand’s of the other sliding weights. No, it’s the hair growing on the mouse’s back is what is doing it.
What is even more ludicrous is that as the mouse’s hair continues to grow unabated, the scales have been moving back in the opposite direction for about a decade and the cultist’s STILL are telling us the the hair on the mouse’s back is tipping the balance.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 am
Thanks for this link karma: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi…..nce_16.php
That’s a really interesting page disputing Evans’ claims that everyone here should read,
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 am
BRANDS. Americans are addicted to toxic poisons that are sold as Brands. Ritalin for example was sold to the US to harvest the brains of our children, 1974. Nice brand. It has worked (Kip Kingle, Columbine Massacre, Virginia Tech Massacre, Mark Dean Schwabe, et al.).
So now we’re ready to purchase the BRAND GWOT, oops, no - now we’re done with this one, for now. But, we Americans shall be EVER ready to take our brands, Flintstone vitamins for example - POISONS! Unbelievable poisons, however, Americans love their ICONS.
Can’t identify with anything but BRANDS. That’s why Al Gore could sell such a film in a time of total terror.
It is called brainwashing and the experiment first occurred with the dogs of Pavlov, not in the salivation, but after a SEVERE WEATHER STORM that caused FLOODING and therefore many of the DOGS DROWNED and others (those that lived) FORGOT ALL THE PAVLOVIAN PROGRAMMING.
BRAND BRAINWASHING TO REPROGRAM BEGAN THEN.
SUSTAINABLE/GREEN IS A BRAND PRODUCT SOLD BY THE EU, and the US is the EU, in essence (well the true kings and queens that rule are in the EU).
Think about it for just a minute. We purchase the brands sustainable/green and bury our silly asses for those that rule. They only want 200 billion of these pesky flesh disposable commodities and so they sell us our own burial, wrapped up in saving the planet. It is true, after all - bury enough humans and the planet can have a time out.
But, why do non-scientists and other “rulers” continue to choose the lack of common sense for our species?
Weird science alright.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Carbon is the gas of life - what a sick inversion to say it is a destructive force that needs to be regulated by heavy-handed international governance!
We live in times of inversion; the Dharma is overturned and crap peddled as truth, and those who refuse to drink the proverbial Kool-aid are mocked, while those who have disabled their reason are praised.
Time to to grab a bull-horn and join Alex….
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 am
@Gregory Fegel
“You need to understand that most climatologists don’t claim that Global Warming is caused by human activity.”
Name ten then. If “most climatologists” disagree with AGW, name ten of them. Because I have yet to find one who wasn’t clearly wrong.
“And don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with the theory of human caused Global Warming is a right winger or a lover of industry.”
I don’t. I just think they don’t know what the hell they are talking about - like you.
“You rely on ‘experts’ to tell you what to think.”
Actually, no I don’t (even though relying on the EXPERTS seems like a pretty safe bet, unless you think relying on IDIOTS is smarter?) I read the bullshit that the liars and deniers write, then compare it to the other side, and EVERY SINGLE TIME the liars and deniers are caught in their, at best, errors, and at worst, flat out lies.
But hey, if you want to be an ignorant fool and slave to the power elites, go right ahead and swallow every piece of bullshit they feed you. I mean, it’s not like you will be around to see the results, eh? So why should you give a shit if future generations have to deal with the consequences.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
@Know
“The scientists who don’t want their theories to be proven full of holes don’t ALLOW them into the light of the public eye.”
Give me a BREAK! The whole damn theory has been “in the public eye” for over a decade! How the hell would you have even HEARD of Global Warming if it wasn’t???
God, some people are terminally stupid.
“It’s not even debatable that 1% +/- of CO2 emissions are man created, and that little 1% aint squat.”
Oh give over. 1% of 100 isn’t squat, 1% of 100,000,000 is quite a lot. So the actual percentage is irrelevant - what matters is the affect that percentage has.
If you were holding a rope that passed over a pulley to a weight suspended in the air - if that weight was as little as 1% heavier than you, you’d soon find yourself hanging in mid air. But 1% “ain’t squat”, right?
Fool.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
vein:
I like and agree with most of what you have to say, but I disagree with you on one point, which is your comments about “The lie about the coming ice-age in the 70’s…”
During the 1970s the scientific data from a variety of sources regarding the pattern, timing, and cause of the Ice Age cycle had reached a point where the history of the Ice Age cycle was quite well known. Climatologists Imbrie and Imbrie published a review of this data in 1979.
You need to understand that the climatologists’ prediction that the earth is on the verge of entering another Ice Age WAS NOT ‘debunked’; in fact, since the 1970s, a lot more additional data has accumulated that REAFFIRMS and REINFORCES the conclusion that the earth is on the verge of entering an Ice Age.
For the past 12,000 years the earth has been going through what is known as a warm interstadial, which happens between Ice Age glacial maximums that last for approximately 100,000 years.
At the end of each and every 12,000 year-long warm interstadial, the earth’s temperature peaks sharply in the highest temperature spike that occurs within the whole cycle. Atmospheric CO2 peaks at the same time. These events happen like clockwork during the approximately 110,000 year-long Ice Age cycle.
‘Global Warming’ is nothing more than the peak of the global temperature spike that ALWAYS occurs at the end of a warm interstadial. The earth is now poised to enter another Ice Age, just like a roller coaster car that has reached the summit of that last, highest trestle, before it plunges into the next, inevitable and unstoppable Ice Age.
Don’t be impatient and dismiss the climatologists’ prediction of the approaching Ice Age if doesn’t begin this year, or next year. The next Ice Age may not begin in our lifetimes, but the scientific data indicate that it is certainly due to come within the next few hundred years. Which does not preclude the possibility that it could begin sooner than that.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 am
@Know
“He’s also the guy that Australia considered good enough to have written the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”
He was an Electrical Engineer, with not one single publication related to climate science, who has said he knows nothing about CLIMATE modeling, who was hired to create a model for monitoring CO2 OUTPUT. He was NOT modeling what CO2 does in the atmosphere, but how much CO2 output was affected by the change of land use etc - two VERY different things.
“So, what you think, he’s not good enough now to say he disagrees with the thing he signed on with prematurely in the first place?”
No, I am saying he has ZERO qualifications or experience to speak either way, and has admitted as much in the past. In fact, he never spoke in favour, so cast that fallacy out of your mind right away, and to top it all off he was hired by a government that spent that whole decade DENYING Global Warming existed in the first place, but was FORCED to accept the truth when even those assholes couldn’t deny the evidence in front of their own eyes.
Now all those assholes have switched tack and now claim it’s something else causing the thing they denied existed. Yep I’m gonna believe them THIS time!
Not frigging likely!
“Boy you guys love someone when they agree with you, but the minute they don’t tow the proverbial party line- off with their heads!”
Not at all - he never AGREED in the first place - he simply participated in the farce that was Australian Government Climate Change policy. Find ONE paper or publication, that came out BEFORE he supposedly switched sides, that shows him agreeing with AGW theory. You can’t, because there aren’t any. All we have is his WORD that he believed it before, and he has already been proven to be a fool and/or liar. So I wouldn’t take his word if he told me the sky was mostly blue and grass was mostly green.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
@Ken Hall
A nice long and utterly ridiculous analogy - at least you interpretation of it.
Let me simplify it for you a bit - Take that see-saw, and put 20 tons of scientific papers on one end, and 20 tons of bullshit on the other. What you get is a perfectly balanced see-saw. Now add one more turd to the bullshit, and what happens? The balance tips, and the bullshit comes tumbling down.
Yes, with all the variables you analogy is closer, but in all that detail you obscure the simply fact that a TINY difference to the balanced system can send it toppling one way or the other.
So yes, many factors combine to make the climate as we see it. Changing any one of them, even slightly, changes the balance. All the OTHER factors have been around for ever, but what WE are doing is new. That is why the climate has to adjust, and why scientists are worried about where it will find the new balance.
“the scales have been moving back in the opposite direction for about a decade”
No they haven’t. The liars and deniers will keep repeating that lie until it to becomes nothing more that an object of ridicule (which it practically is now) and then they will find some other bullshit to run with. They’ve done it before, and they will do it again.
Ten years ago, people like you said Global Warming wasn’t even happening. Now, people like you HAVE to admit it is, but try to find some other cause for it. In the end, you will once again be forced to admit the truth, and I’m sure you will find some other reason to ignore it.
The water vapour misdirection is also a tired old lie, and anyone with a brain would be able to figure out why. If water vapour has always been there, then it’s effects are already part of the balance. Saying “there is already 20 tons of bullshit on this see-saw, so one more turd can’t make a difference” is patently stupid.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
@Publius
If carbon is the “gas of life”, I suggest you fill a room full of CO2 and spend 15 minutes basking in it. It will do you the world of good.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
@GaryCol
So Maggie invented AGW? And thousands of scientists world wide suddenly fell in love with her and decided to lie their asses off for 2 decades?
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
@Gregory Fegel
Just a quick response regarding your claims that we have been in an interstadial for the last 12000 years.
You don’t even know what an interstadial IS, do you? Here let me help:
a period of temporary retreat of ice during a glacial stage; a warming period.
http://dictionary.reference.co.....terstadial
of a relatively warm period during a glacial epoch, when glaciers temporarily stop or retreat
http://www.yourdictionary.com/interstadial
Pertaining to a period during a glacial stage in which the ice retreated temporarily.
http://www.answers.com/topic/interstadial
Maybe if you actually bothered to spend 30 seconds with Google, rather than simply repeating bullshit from idiots, you would have avoided looking like a fool.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
GLOBAL SCAM CAKES,NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARNING YOU SILLY BASTARDS.KEEP DRINKING THE GRAPE COOL AID.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
WE WERE SHITTING IN OUT HOUSES ONLY 120 YEARS AGO,BUT WE FOR SURE KNOW ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING, IT’S ALWAYS HAPPEND ON THIS EARTH FROM THE START.HEY WHAT’S A COUPLE OF DEG ANYWAY,I LIKE IT WARMER ANYWAY.THIS ONE OUT OF TWENTY WAYS TO GET PEOPLE FREAKING OUT ABOUT ANYTHING,THIS WAY ALL YOU COOL AID DRINKERS CAN LINE UP AND GET ON THE TRAINS LEADING TO THE FEMA CAMPS.PLEASE EVERYONE BUY AMMO,LOTS OF AMMO.MY SQUAD,AND MY FIRE TEAM WILL NEED VERY SOON.22 CAL,38 CAL 357 CAL 227 AMMO.LOTS OF BUCK SHOT AS WELL.THANK YOU.RFF ( REAL FREEDOM FIGHTERS)
July 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Sometimes we just believe what we want to believe.
There is no Dr. Richard Evans who wrote this. His name is David Evans : http://www.theaustralian.news......83,00.html
(why was his name misquoted? really shoddy)
I think his OPINION is just as valid as any other human being, but he is not a ‘rocket scientist’ . Look at his credentials: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/pa.....nsbio.html
He was soooo smart that he lost his shirt in the stock market. Not sure I want to take stock in his ideas. His present job is writing a word processor program? - why does the world need another one of these?
Truly, if you want to learn something - do the research.
Thanks for voting for me. (you’ll make the same mistake next time)
July 24th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
We can actually use CO2 as a raw material for fuel production. The process is known as methanation and can also be applied to CO.
The formula is 4H2 + CO2 + heat = CH4 + 2H2O and was discovered by Paul Sabatier who got the Nobel in 1912 for the many hundreds of then unknown chemical reaction discoveries.
NASA will be using it to refuel from the Martian atmosphere of CO2 for the return trip of a manned mission to Mars, when they get to do it. They will use solar energy to power the reaction and it will take several months as obviously it is a `trickle charger`, the atmosphere there being very thin.
So, for those who think increasing amounts of CO2 cause Global Warming, and as the next Ice Age is approaching, don’t know when, we had better leave the increasing amounts of CO2 in the air to put off the Ice Age some.
And for those who think increasing amounts of CO2 cause Global Cooling, and as the next Ice Age is approaching, we had better both use the CO2 in the air as the raw material for fuel and stop the use of coal, oil and gas to put off the Ice Age.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
@michaelm
Are you serious? Pointing out other uses for CO2 as if that changes its role in global warming is stupid. As for the next Ice Age, sure you could argue that Global Warming will delay it, and you’d probably be right, but by then millions of people will be dead.
Ice Ages occur over geological time frames - tens of thousands of years - Global Warming will have devastated the world long before the next Ice Age can help.
A little bit of education might help you.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Kamikaze, would you find merit in methanation of CO2 as an alternative to its sequestration?
And as there is no limit to the availability of CO2 nor the solar energy required to process it, then to that extent we wouldn’t need to draw out of the ground the hydrocarbons there.
Should be in keeping with your argument.
About 110,000 yrs is the length of an Ice Age and we are close to the end of the present interglacial. So, who is to know whether in 50 or 1,000 yrs the next one will turn up?
But in the meantime, if it’s GW you believe in, we can recycle CO2 for energy and cap all the gas wells.
If that turn’s out to be not enough we can recycle more CO2 and cap all the oil wells.
If that also turns out to be not enough, we can recycle yet more CO2 and close the coal mines.
That should certainly complete proof of your concept.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Global warming is a hoax, promoted by con artists like Al (carbon credit trader, carbon bigfoot, 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, private jet plane) Gore. He and the wealthy banksters who stand to profit hope all Americans are stupid enough to believe this latest lie about the “sky falling”. If this is true, why are the polar ice caps melting ON MARS? Are Martians driving too many Hummers? Ever heard of PHOTOSYNTHESIS? Kudos to the public school system for creating several generations of morons!
July 25th, 2008 at 3:35 am
@michaelm
I have to apologise for my earlier shortness. You don’t seem to be as ill informed as others I’ve been responding to here lately so I was a bit harsh.
“Kamikaze, would you find merit in methanation of CO2 as an alternative to its sequestration?
And as there is no limit to the availability of CO2 nor the solar energy required to process it, then to that extent we wouldn’t need to draw out of the ground the hydrocarbons there.”
Well anything that reduces human carbon dioxide output has to be good, and if it can also create a viable energy source then even better.
“About 110,000 yrs is the length of an Ice Age and we are close to the end of the present interglacial. So, who is to know whether in 50 or 1,000 yrs the next one will turn up?”
Actually, the more important number is the duration of the interglacial periods, like the one we are in now. In the past this was generally assumed to be about 12000 years, which would square up with an glacial period starting in about 500 years.
Unfortunately, that early assumption is now highly questionable. The last interglacial period that most closely resembles this one lasted around 28000 years which would leave us in a bit of a bind. As it is, the chances of this one ending sooner than a thousand years or so are slight, so relying on that to save us isn’t going to help - the major damage will be done long before then.
Having said all that, I’m not sure if we have any kind of beef. Clearly your idea, if it can be made to work, will vastly improve the situation, but I don’t see how that makes any difference as to whether Global Warming is occurring. Which is why I said I may have been harsh on you, because now it doesn’t seem you are questioning the science at all - more like simply ignoring that argument and offering a suggestion for a future replacement for fossil fuels, regardless of Global Warming.
——-
@NoBozos
Funny you should mention the failed education system, because you seem to be a fine example of it.
“Global warming is a hoax, promoted by con artists like Al (carbon credit trader, carbon bigfoot, 10,000 sq. ft. mansion, private jet plane) Gore. He and the wealthy banksters who stand to profit hope all Americans are stupid enough to believe this latest lie about the “sky falling”.”
Actually, a Carbon Tax is a hoax perpetrated by the elites to 1) make money from the concern over Global Warming, and 2) to con people like you into protecting the FAR GREATER profits they make from CO2 emissions. Global Warming itself has nothing to do with THAT hoax, except as basis for their cynical con.
“If this is true, why are the polar ice caps melting ON MARS?”
Actually, only one part of one Solar cap was measured to have melted - so NOT global warming. Secondly, Mars is FAR more sensitive to variations like solar output than Earth. Thirdly, those measurements represent around a year and half on Mars, and as such can NOT be used to determine climate trends. Fourth, but not least, mean global temperatures on Mars today are COLDER than when Viking measured them, though this is mostly due to the proliferation of large dust storms on Mars in the 70’s that are not as common today.
Basically, you are comparing apples and oranges, and they have NOTHING to do with each other.
“Ever heard of PHOTOSYNTHESIS?”
Yes I have - now can you explain what that has to do with Global Warming? It’s much more fun to shoot down your actual argument, than to have to guess what your argument is.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am
This IS BIG TIME BULLSHIT.
I remember Scientific American articles from 1979 to 1982 who described EXACTLY the weather patterns we now see here. They were even specific about regional differences and right on it.
The petroleum industry, Exxon leading the pack, was denounced many times for financing pseudo-science named groups in order for them to create disinformation. Scientific American said around 2000 that all scientists opposing the green house effect of CO2 where ALL PAID by the Petroleum Industry.
In autumn 2006 the British Royal Society published a public letter asking Exxon to stop financing some 8 such pseudo-science groups which were named for mitigating the green house effect of CO2.
Exxon said it would stop that only to crank it up. One of the liars they hired is the same firm which was hired to lie about the Tobacco industry in the famous senate inquiries!
Even the IPCC was forced to lie about it’s predictions. For example their predictions about the annual arctic minimum ice cover (in Canadian northern waters) is in error by some 40 years even in their pessimist model : it is likely that the ice shelf will totally disapear in 2008’s minimum (normally in mid September).
Within 4 years the water surface temperature rose by a lot and salinity went down accordingly. Find the freaking figures your self, I won’t help on this.
We now face a “secondary effect” that has an even bigger potential. As water temperatures rise the permafrost under the sea on the continental shelf shallow waters is starting to melt releasing methane which is 20 to 35 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. The shear mass present mainly in northern Russia is a real time bomb.
I don’t know how they corrupted this “scientist” into lying so much. I can only tell you that in Quebec we have such a liar, his name is Hubert Reeves, he is supposed to be an astrophysicist. I debunked his lies on Youtube and since then he does not talk the same way at all in his “green” articles in the Journal de Montréal. I just pointed to numbers he was lying about.
So don’t believe Dr. Richard Evans : Zionists and their petroleum
cartel did promote anybody giving him ANY diploma as long as they would lie.
IT’S THAT SIMPLE!
This is an invitation to reply to me publicly EVANS. I am 911allo on youtube and you won’t fool me with pseudo science. Please begin by telling us what car you have and what is the price of your house, your bank account status, who paid you in the last 5 years.
Thanks for being really transparent!
Michel Lauzon, E.E.
Reverse-engineering politics and undercover
July 25th, 2008 at 11:23 am
rocket scientist lollllll
July 26th, 2008 at 2:10 am
ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2002) — The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters – at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster. But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
To whom “global warming” may concern,
Temperatures have fluctuated withing our solar system since it was formed. The causes of these fluctuations were never human related. Rather related to the body which sits at the center of this solar system, our sun. Solar flares and other activity on the surface of the sun have been more volatile and increasing over the past 15 years. The Earth is a living being and can heal itself. Humans may have and be causing Earth to struggle to maintain equilibrium within its global ecosystem, however, driving carbon emmisions are not driving temperatures up because the evidence shows that elevated levels of CO2 appear AFTER temperatures have already increased. The sun and the Earth’s position within the solar system allow life to exist at a comfortable level. If that comfort level diminishes or becomes extinct, it can be certain to be caused by the hottest thing in our vicinity, the sun.
It is laughable to read some of these comments posted by informed, even intelligent people who think they have the answers.
I want to debate the “Global Cooling” which was predicted by scientists in the 1970’s. If there’s one thing science has proven it is when politics collude and distort data you can “prove” anything.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:07 am
@Ryan
“Solar flares and other activity on the surface of the sun have been more volatile and increasing over the past 15 years.”
Have they? Got any evidence for this claim?
Secondly, even if true, how can changes of the last 15 years, cause warming over the last 200 years? Does sunlight time travel?
“Earth is a living being and can heal itself.”
It is? I got the impression it was a large ball of rock and water, surrounded by a thin coat of gas, with an even thinner layer of living organisms between them. I had no idea this planet was alive!
“driving carbon emmisions are not driving temperatures up because the evidence shows that elevated levels of CO2 appear AFTER temperatures have already increased.”
Oh, I see, you are referring to the end of glacial periods, when CO2 didn’t CAUSE the warming, it only ENHANCED it, hence the lag. Of course, we haven’t just come out of a glacial period. In fact the last one was over 11,500 years ago, but I’m sure Ryan knows what he’s talking about.
“Earth’s position within the solar system allow life to exist at a comfortable level. If that comfort level diminishes or becomes extinct, it can be certain to be caused by the hottest thing in our vicinity, the sun.”
OK, makes sense, after all, Venus which is twice as far away from the Sun as Mercury, and receives only ONE QUARTER as much Solar radiation, is hotter than Mercury (460 Deg. C. compared to 426 Deg. C.) DESPITE the Greenhouse Gases (~96.5% Carbon Dioxide) in its atmosphere, not BECAUSE of them. Yes, I’m sure Ryan knows what he’s talking about.
“It is laughable to read some of these comments posted by informed, even intelligent people who think they have the answers.”
Yes, it is RYAN - it is also incredibly ironic that you should say that…
“I want to debate the “Global Cooling” which was predicted by scientists in the 1970’s.”
Uh huh… Of course the fact that for every study during the 70’s suggesting cooling, there were THREE suggesting warming, is just a side issue. Of course ALL scientists were predicting “Global Cooling” The media said so! I mean it’s not like the media back then even ADMITTED it was unlikely and far from being settled science or even the predominant theory… what? They did? Oh, never mind then…
“If there’s one thing science has proven it is when politics collude and distort data you can “prove” anything.”
Yes, you have proven that… Oh, you said SCIENCE proved that? Well, I am SURE you meant YOU, because science has done no such thing.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:35 am
The earth is 4.5 billion years old, did it ever occur to you that global warming may have happened before? Even 500,000 years of data only represents 0.011% of the earths history.
So before you go behaving like the angry mob with someone who dares to have a different (and maybe right) opinion, take time to think about the bigger picture. Let’s not presume to be so arrogant that we know everything, we are just a blimp in the ocean. And no I’m not a bible basher, just someone that is open to the truth no how confrontational it may be. Wake up people, man made global warming is a scam.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
@Jason
“The earth is 4.5 billion years old, did it ever occur to you that global warming may have happened before? Even 500,000 years of data only represents 0.011% of the earths history.”
Not only has it occurred to me, I can in fact prove it. Doesn’t change the fact of AGW though.
A long time ago, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were over 7000ppm. Of course the Earth was also extremely hot, and life was very simple and very rare (relatively). Then something happened to cause a “cold snap” if you will, and CO2 dropped to about current levels. Then the Cambrian Explosion took place. Most forms of life we know today had their roots in that period.
So, you think it’s a good idea to reverse that process?
“So before you go behaving like the angry mob with someone who dares to have a different (and maybe right) opinion,”
Actually, not maybe, but definitely WRONG. Liars are liars, and anyone who blindly believes them is nothing but a retard.
“Let’s not presume to be so arrogant that we know everything, we are just a blimp in the ocean.”
Funny, I thought blimps flew in the air?
“And no I’m not a bible basher, just someone that is open to the truth no how confrontational it may be. Wake up people, man made global warming is a scam.”
You just proved yourself to be a LIAR in two sentences. Well done. That takes a very special kind of stupidity to pull off.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 am
@Karmakaze
If you were around 500 years ago you’d be arguing blue in face that the earth was flat, purely because there was no evidence (that you would believe) that could show you the earth is a globe. You are nothing but a part of the mob. I’m sorry you have no individuality to think beyond what you are fed by popular media and the masses. Dare to be different dude, you have good skills, put them to good use and wake up the planet…..start with yourself first though.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 am
@Jason
“If you were around 500 years ago you’d be arguing blue in face that the earth was flat, purely because there was no evidence (that you would believe) that could show you the earth is a globe.”
Let me guess, you thought that up all by yourself, right? I am going to assume the answer is YES, because you seem to have overlooked the incredibly OBVIOUS evidence that the Earth is NOT flat… it’s called THE HORIZON.
So far more likely is the probability that YOU would have denied the evidence you see all around you, because someone told you that evidence was a trick…
Hmm, sounds familiar.
“You are nothing but a part of the mob.”
You better believe it, testa di minchia! I am mobbed up to the eyeballs. Fuggedaboutit…
“I’m sorry you have no individuality”
We are the Borg. Resistance is futile!
“Dare to be different dude”
How, by conforming to YOUR views? AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, and by the way… Blow me!
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 am
@Karmakaze
wow you’re causing global warming just with your anger. Typical of mob behaviour. Don’t bother responding, I wont be coming back to read any of your childish comments. w*anker.