The Global Warming/Climate Change Paradox - Why CO2 has not, is not, nor will not be an issue
Image via Wikipedia
[updated May 28 with corrected figures] The Global Warming/Climate Change (GW/CC) paradox is similar to the Moon Paradox. For decades all the modeling scenarios could not explain how or why The Moon exists until the recent impact theory was proven plausible, so apparently the Moon did not exist until recently.
Since most modeling scenario’s show that earth cannot or will not be able to deal with anthropogenic CO2, it is believed that anthropogenic CO2 will cause untold disasters. The two most predominant issues for anthropogenic CO2 are, 1.) Is the increase of anthropogenic CO2 a factor for influencing the climate. And 2.) Can the planet deal with an increase of atmospheric CO2.
To look at the issue of GW/CC, a scale of 400,000 Years Before Present (YBP), 10 Million YBP, or even a 600 Million YBP is not an adequate scale to understand how Earth has dealt with atmospheric CO2 levels and volumes. There are a few mitigating factors that Earth has had to contend with that are exponentially larger factors than the small percentage of anthropogenic CO2 humans currently or will emit even if anthropogenic CO2 emissions double or triple that of today’s emission rate.
To understand the causes and effects of anthropogenic CO2, understanding how Earth evolved from 2 to 3 Billion YBP is needed. About 2 Billion YBP, Earth was a planet of water until volcanic activity breached the oceans surface to create land. Through photosynthesis, stromatolite microbes that formed in shallow waters converted the near saturated CO2 red atmosphere into the blue oxygen atmosphere similar to today’s atmosphere, and the olive green iron rich oceans into the oxygen blue oceans similar to today’s oceans.
Tectonic activity converged the land masses into the single land mass of Rodinia about 1 billion years ago, which was a baron rock surface devoid of life. It is widely accepted that since Rodinia was one large land mass stretching from pole to pole, Rodinia blocked the ocean currents from being able to circulate to the poles causing the Snowball Earth Event about 700 Million YBP, though recent findings suggest that a Gamma Ray Burst may have stripped Earth of its atmosphere causing the temperature to drop to an average mean temperature of -40 to – 60 degrees Fahrenheit causing the Snowball Earth Event.
Since Earth was blanketed in ice, it is widely accepted that Earths internal temperatures rose causing volcanic venting and eruptions about 650 Million YBP, raising atmospheric CO2 levels which allowed the atmospheric temperatures to rise, releasing the glacial blanket. This allowed for the Cambrian explosion of life on land and in water. It is estimated that the amount of water in the mantle is from 2 to 12 times the amounts of water on the surface, allowing for the release of large amounts of CO2 through volcanic venting and eruptions.
So when the atmospheric CO2 levels rose to more than 7000 PPMA due to volcanic activity, the explosion of stromatolites flora and algae that formed in the Cambrian explosion, were more than sufficient to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Due to tectonic activity and volcanic venting and eruption, Rodinia broke apart and reformed into the continent of Pangia.
About 250 million YBP, high amounts of CO2, approximately 49 billion tons of CO2 per year (1.66 X today’s anthropogenic emission rate) were vented during the Siberian Traps Event alone, and with the additional volcanic venting caused massive flora growth, which was the means that herds of tens of tons dinosaurs could exist, since flora is the base of the food chain.
Dinosaur size was a biological adaptation of favorable environmental conditions, and the abundant food supply attributed to high CO2 emission volumes and levels. The average size animal during the reign of dinosaurs was the size of a Grizzly Bear. Today, the average size animal is the size of a medium size dog.
About 65 Million YBP, the continent of Pangia was breaking up into the continental configuration we know today. During that time, a meteor struck the Chicxulub peninsula which is attributed to the demise of dinosaurs, but the meteor impact may have been the trigger of the Deccan Trap eruption, causing massive CO2 venting again, approximately equal to today’s 30 billion tons per year of anthropogenic CO2 from the Deccan Traps alone.
The Siberian Traps flowed about 1 million cubic miles of lava, which would cover the United States in 1 thousand feet of lava, and the Deccan Traps flowed about 600,000 cubic miles of lava which would cover the United States in about 600 feet of lava. Though these were not minor events, Earth’s stromatolite flora and algae and other means, were more than adequate to remove the high volumes of CO2 emitted from the mantle plumes events and other volcanic activity exceeding today’s CO2 emission rate of 1.03 trillion tons annually.
Due to the continental positions and tectonic activity, the climate was as much as twenty degrees warmer than current average mean temperatures. Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, ocean currents, and the volcanic activity all contributed to the tropical environment that allowed life to thrive.
That all changed 2 Million years ago when volcanic activity breached the ocean surface in the Isthmus Of Panama cutting off the Atlantic and Pacific ocean current creating the Gulf Of Mexico current stream, and along with Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, and the change in ocean currents, contributing to the approximate 100 thousand year cyclic climate conditions earth has experienced for the last 800 thousand years or so.
CO2 and temperatures became cyclical due to the division of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, due to the 600 to 2400 year lag in CO2 rise after the temperature rises along with the other astro factors. With higher levels of atmospheric CO2, flora stromatolite and algae populations rise abundantly.
Farmers are experiencing the highest crop yield per acre than ever in thousands of years of recorded history, partly due to farming techniques and fertilizer technologies, but more predominantly due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 then falls below the 200 Parts Per Million Atmosphere (PPMA) threshold because when CO2 levels are above the 200 PPMA, along with other factors, photosynthesis life thrives more abundantly, causing the absorption rate of CO2 to exceed the CO2 emission rate. Then, at or slightly below 200 PPMA, growth of life that uses photosynthesis is stifled.
When CO2 levels are at 180 PPMA photosynthesis flora begin to respire (exhale) CO2, and at levels of 150 PPMA all photosynthesis flora will die, including food crops that rely on photosynthesis. With a reduction in growth of photosynthesis life due to lower atmospheric CO2 levels (at or below 200 PPMA), atmospheric CO2 levels are able to rise again.
As atmospheric CO2 levels rise, the photosynthesis organisms thrive and over populate, eventually causing atmospheric CO2 levels to drop to the levels that atmospheric CO2 cannot support the photosynthesis organisms (below the 200 PPMA threshold), causing an amount of photosynthesis organisms to stifle growth, allowing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise again.
A lag in growth and reduction of photosynthetic life is a probable factor for the rise and fall of atmospheric CO2 levels. If growth and reduction were near the rise and fall of CO2 emissions, then atmospheric CO2 levels would remain near constant levels. This is a mechanism for why the atmospheric CO2 levels rise and fall cyclically, along with Earths orbit, gyroscopic progression of Earth’s rotation, Solar activity, ocean currents, and volcanic activity.
Greenhouses deliberately use CO2 generators to keep the atmospheric CO2 levels at levels 2 to 4 times today’s CO2 PPMA rate of 385 PPMA to the levels of 1000 to 1500 PPMA. With the lag in growth and reduction of photosynthesis organisms when atmospheric CO2 levels rise and fall, there is a lag in CO2 rise after the rise of temperatures which contribute to cyclic factors – temperature rise precedes CO2 rise; CO2 rise does not precede temperature rise.
Today about 1 tillion tons of CO2 are emitted annually naturally, and humans only contribute 30 billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 3% of total CO2 emissions. At that rate, humans would have to cease all fuel burning for cooking of foods, about 50% of electrical generation, all automotive transportation, and heating in the winter for more than 33 years to be equal to the naturally emitted CO2 annual amounts.
Above and beyond the ability for Earth to deal with atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis and other means, there is more solar radiation (heat dissipated into space) through water vapor which is 78 to 82% of climate influence, when temperatures rise. CO2 is only currently 0.036% climatic influential, which translates into a rise of only 0.05 Degree C in average mean temperature if atmospheric CO2 levels are more than doubled to 800 PPMA, and the influence would only be experienced at night. Earth has natural checks and balances for regulating atmospheric CO2 levels and climate.
Since 1 trillion tons of atmospheric CO2 is being presented to change climate average mean temperatures by 1 degree C, then the average mean temperatures should rise 1 degree C every year but does not, due to the fact that Earth is able to deal with much more than the 1 trillion tons of annual anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions.
Since there is a range of 2 to 12 times the amount of water in the mantle than on the surface through oceanic subduction, thousands of tons of water are subducted and vented daily. The entire world’s oceans are cycled about every 30 million years through the crust and mantle through subduction and venting. If subduction rates were to diminish, it is very possible for venting of water vapor into the atmosphere to cause ocean levels to rise.
Without venting, the ocean level would continuously drop, and without subduction the level would continuously rise. If the estimated volumes of water in the mantle were to be vented to the surface all at once, the ocean would be about 2 miles above Mt. Everest. Subduction and venting may be a factor for the ocean’s levels varying from 430 feet lower average mean level and 30 feet higher average mean level than today’s levels, beyond glacial storage and release of reserve waters to cause ocean average mean levels to vary.
In short, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not, nor will not be a climate issue. If Earth could deal with the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps emitting tens of billions of tons of CO2 for thousands and millions of years as well as other mantle plume events in addition to the continuous rate of venting at plate boundaries, then the 30 billions tons of annually emitted anthropogenic CO2 is not nor will not be a problem for Earth to deal with, even if anthropogenic emissions are more than doubled.
By far, the largest contributing factors for Earths climate and temperature variant are influenced by Solar Output, and Water Vapor that is 78% to 82% of temperature influence. The bottom line is that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are more favorable for life to flourish. Keep in mind that most GW/CC presentations deliberately omit the big picture of the CO2 cycle (cherry picking the information), and there is a deliberate reason that children and teens are selected to promote GW/CC.

Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.

Comments
The process as I am coming to understand it is self regulating and has been since long before man began walking upright.
Nothing I have heard or seen indicates to me that is about to change.
Now if we want to "play god" perhaps we should determine what the optimal levels are to promote growth and minimize rapid cooling then strive to maintain those levels.
The reductions to the levels being discussed by the IPCC and various government bodies (from the understanding of the atmospheric process thus far) would appear to result in more (not less) environmental problems.
Not that they have a snowball's chance in hell of ever achieving those reductions.
At levels of around 5000 ppma it can cause dizziness in humans, and be counterproductive to plants.
Levels can be 1200 to about 3500 for maximum growth of flora and other photosynthesis life (algea, stromatolites etc.)
For 599 million of the last 600 million years, the average mean level was 1200 ppma.
The planet is actually CO2 starved. We should be emitting more, not sequestering it or minimizing the emission rate.
150 ppm - the minimum concentration below which many plants may face problems to run photosynthesis and stop growing
180 ppm - the concentration during ice ages
280 ppm - the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750
391 ppm - the concentration today
500 ppm - the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)
560 ppm - the concentration around 2080-2110 (the "doubled CO2" relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today
700 ppm - the concentration in an average living room
900 ppm - concentration in an average kitchen
1,270 ppm - the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video
(cont'd below)
1,700 ppm - the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)
4,500 ppm - the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs
10,000 ppm - sensitive people start to feel weaker
40,000 ppm - the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out
50,000 ppm - toxic levels at which the animals like us get weaker in hours; the value is 5 percent of the volume
180,000 ppm - the concentration of CO2 in exhausts of a healthy motor; that's 18 percent
1,000,000 ppm - pure CO2, just to make you sure what the units are
Kind of puts it in perspective.
A liitle more attention to the solar/cosmic balance and the latest CLOUD developments out of CERN and I'd award not just a gold star, but a rhinocerous stamp on the hand as well!
Cole Jeffrey has brought up a little discussed but crucial point. Any changes in rate of transfer between surface water and subterranean water would affect sea levels far more than the alleged CO2 correlation.
First off, I am very impressed with the knowledge you have on display here. While I have not checked up on your assertions, they seem probable enough. Good job again!
However, I thought that the issue with climate change is not the survival of the planet Earth, but the survival of mankind, due to the disruption brought on by CC to the ecosystems, extreme weather etc? You know, those big creatures near the top of the food chain are typically the most vulnerable. Ask the Dinos!
But I will agree with you that I think the planet is well capable of looking after itself.
Cheers.
Diverting acreage that could be used for food crops to growing crops for bio-fuels for example.
The bio-fuels are not going to make a bit of difference to the planet, but the food that could have been grown but wasn't will certainly make a difference to some of its people.
We have been both warmer and cooler than now (warmer always being preferable to cooler). We have seen cooling and warming periods since the time we began keeping records. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate or how we got here.
In order to show that man is influencing climate, one must first prove that the climate we are seeing is not being produced by natural cycles. To date, there has never been even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes.
Isn't it odd that they make such a wild claim with zero proof?
As for the so called main stream science, that is a myth. There is 31,478 scientists in the US alone that say this Climate Change or Global Warming stuff is not real science. thepetitionproject.org
There are only a few dozen people with science degrees that are promoting this myth - but the ideological media doesnt report that. The so called mainstream media has an agenda to promote as well, and climate change is a part of that.
AGO? Anthropogenic Global Obliteration? The theory that man made CO2 attracts planet killers, making CO2 not only a 'greenhouse' gas, but now an 'asteroid-house' gas too.
Why not, we already blame CO2 for...
'Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed...'
www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
As for which sides the "main stream" climate scientists are on, we would have to rely on the administration to show us the way right?
If NOAA supports the idea of man-made climate change, who am I to argue? If the thepetitionproject.org is true, where do IPCC, NOAA, or just about every other country get their ideas of climate change from?
Just sayin.
To claim that man is influencing climate, one must first prove that the current climate is not naturally derived.
This has NEVER BEEN DONE.
By the way, NOAA is reporting that the oceans have been cooling for over 15 years...
'er the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending March 2011 was the 6th coldest March-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, March 2011 was 79th coldest in the past 117 years.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 2.9°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.'
(cont'd below)
'For the 10-year period ending March 2011, the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 12.9°F per century rate, again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.'
And according to UAH...
'The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC. It is quite a sharp drop.
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.'
(cont'd below)
'According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:'
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
(cont'd below)
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it's time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.
Now, keep in mind, they have still not shown that there is even a reason to be concerned.
Until natural variability is disproven, the alarmists have nothing to talk about.
(Continued)
I also am confident that if the planet is doing well then so will the life forms on it (animals plants and people), as this article says.
Quote:in reply to my reply I decided it was time to call it a day rather than let it irritate me.
As Gator said "mitigate what?" There has been inadequate research done to determine what we "simply must do" to "mitigate" anything. The IPCC and their cheerleaders plain and simple do not understand the processes they are messing with well enough to know what (if anything) is being caused (or influenced) by what.
And people take their word for it that following their recommendation will reverse things. They don't know that either.
Plenty of evidence to indicate that temperature increases lead CO2 increases and not the other way around as they claim.
It would appear that as the atmospheric processes are better understood the increases in CO2 may very well precede drops in temperature.
If that is the case then following the IPCC agenda (assuming any actual reductions would have an observable impact on the atmosphere and climate any time in our lifetime or the lifetime of the next 10 generations) would result in exactly the opposite of what they are claiming.
or they are well aware of the fact that they are talking out of their arses and don't give a damn (in which case we are being lied to)
It look more and more like a case of fixing something that isn't broken. Environmentally (with regards to global temperatures and weather patterns) it isn't going to change a thing.
Economically (and politically) you can bet it's going to change things, and those changes will not be beneficial to humankind (other than a very small percent of it who don't give a damn about the rest of us anyway).
That is what it has always been about.
The proof is that we are pumping measurable amounts of CO2 into the air and the CO2 in the air is measurably increasing.
There appears to be little if any correlation between this rise in CO2 and the things the alarmists are saying it is causing. As an impartial observer, if anything bad happens some money grubbing scientist will link it to CO2 and demand more money for further investigation.
Gators warmlist link should be the first port of call for anyone seriously interested in AGW.
How does the atmosphere know what is naturally emitted CO2 and what is man made???? All presentations show that only man made CO2 is the problem, not naturally emitted CO2. (CO2 is actually not an issue) You dont need a masters degree or be a Rhodes scholar to figure out this formula - Only man made CO2 is causing the problem. As presented, all other factors do not count...... It simply is that the data is cherry picked to promote the issue of climate change.
Leading scientists of the day and respected doctors had made claims that were published in newspapers for years, that high speed travel would cause people to become stupid, have memory loss, and at high speeds, the air would be sucked out of their lungs. Passengers would do mental tasks and record their observations to try to measure how much damage was being done at the high speeds.
That was in the 1850's to warn of the high speed train travel above 35 MPH. It is only anecdotal stories and urban legands preceived to be real. There are some that only want to promote their self importance. Sound familiar????
Thomas Edison gave the electric chair to the state of New York to be used as a means of capital punishment. Edison electrocuted small animals, eventually electrocuting an elephant. Edison wanted the court of public opinion to be afraid of DC electricity over Tesla's AC electric. Edison wanted to prove how deadly AC electricity is. Sound familiar???
There are other documented situations that someone wanted to'prove' their ideology, and use the public as the coice to promote their ideologies, through misinformation.
I hope Cole will write more about the so called climate change issue. I would like to know more about specific situations and data that is being presented as "real science."
www.opednews.com/author/author23155.html
Stefan just stepped in it...
“About “disproving natural variability”: why would any scientist in his right mind waste his time trying to disprove natural variability?”
Oopsy! Scientific method denier alert!
makewealthhistory.org/2011/05/12/climate-change-denial-by-haydn-washington-and-jon-cook/#comment-9967
'Jeremy' claims to be a Christian and even has a section 'devoted' to why it is unChristian to not believe in AGW. Yeah, I left a note there too.
It is amazing how weak the arguments are in these echo chambers the warmists have created. At least his site does not censor (so far).
I’ve asked five or six times for you to make good on your claim that you have 900 studies that refute AGW and you haven’t posted any. So I’m done here.
And yes, I provided the link to the papers yesterday!
I’m not ducking the discussion. If you’re ignoring what I’m saying, then we’re not discussing, are we? I’m just wasting my time. No doubt you’ll want the last word – be my guest.
And I was his bestest guest ever!
Opinionated Editorial News
Kind of contradictory there isn't it? If it's an Opinion Piece that has been Editorialized then it's not really News is it?
You must have really ruined their day.
Jeremy can't be much of a Christian if he buys into AGW. Someone should ask him if he's such a Christian why he believes that man can control nature.
Make Wealth History
Because the earth can't afford our lifestyleA note on faith Those of us behind this site are Christians, and we believe our faith has something to say about sustainability and equality. If you’re not a Christian, feel free to pass on this section if you wish. If you are a Christian, please read on, because I believe we have a duty that we have been turning a blind eye to.
Let me summarise the idea of Christian responsibilty in four areas:
We have a duty to God.
Psalm 24 begins with the following words: ‘The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.’ The earth is not ours. Contrary to some popular understanding, God did not give us the earth – he gave us the use of it.
(cont'd below)
In Genesis we read that God made the earth good, and that the earth is ‘cursed’ because of us. Human behaviour and the state of the earth are inextricably linked. Have a look at Hosea 4, where it describes a society’s violence and dishonesty, and goes on to say: ‘Because of this the land mourns…’
We have a duty to each other.
A very simple principle that John the Baptist puts best in Luke 3: ‘The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’
We have a duty to ourselves.
Homo Sapiens literally means ‘the soil that knows it is alive’ – from the latin for soil and for knowing. As nothing more than ‘sentient earth’ we are part of the ecosystem, not above it. Genesis 3 reminds of us this: ‘dust you are, and to dust you will return.’ When we forget this, we give ourselves a status we can’t live up to.
(cont'd below)
The theology of peak oil.
Waking from the consumer dream.
Why are Christians afraid of climate change?
Jesus and his environment.
Theology of peak oil? Jesus was an oil man? I'm almost afraid to look!
I'll pray that you read Genesis and look in the mirror when you read it; that you appreciate how Nimrod and his people abused their civilization with vain chest-thumping and altars, misplacing their energy and resources to the point it destroyed their civilization. Instead of growing food, making textiles and thanking God for the plenty of their toil, they invested in a singular, total WASTE OF TIME by building a monument to themselves. We all know the results.
Read the Book of Esther, notice that Haman was casting his own guilt onto Mordecai and the Jews and, ultimately, paid with his life for trying to frame innocents with his own transgressions.
Albert Gore & Co. commit MASSIVE carbon footprints while assasinating the good character of the common man. Like all crissis constructors, they are Nimrod and his people; they're Haman and his guilt. Indeed, the climate change context is the greatest fraud in modern human history. Amen & amen!
For starters, Gator is misrepresenting me. I don't think it's 'unchristian' not to believe in AGW.
Neither did I "throw in the towel", or call for reinforcements. You're flattering yourself if you think you won anything. I made it quite clear why I wasn't prepared to carry on the conversation.
And no, Gator didn't post the links to any of those 900 studies either.
My post on his site...
"PS. Can you post some links to the aforementioned peer-reviewed studies that dispute AGW theory?"
Yes. And I can also provide the rebuttal for each and every bogus criticism of the list.
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
That appears to be what you could not find on your own site.
Quoting Jeremy...
Quote:Towel thrown.
I know you do not want to discuss natural variability because is destrroys your precious hypothesis. It is impossible to assign any blame to man if you cannot quantify to what degree nature has driven our climate.
I already did, twice on your site, under the 'A note on faith' section and you responded to my first post already.
If you actuallty read this page I am not alone.
I find it somewhat ironic that you've falsely accused me of saying it's unchristian not to believe in AGW, and then you've basically said it's unchristian to believe in it. As have the good folks below.
I believe that the earth is warming and that human behaviour has a part to play in that. How is that incompatible with the Christian faith?
You have issues. I did not quote you as saying it is unChristian not to believe in AGW. But I did then quote your scripture refernces that are supposed to lead one to believe that is indeed the case.
If that was not your point, why then post the scripture in relation to AGW?
And I'll address the problem with choosing eco zealotry over Christian principles.
Do you remember the DDT scare? It was pursued with the same tactics as all modern eco scares and cost millions of innocent lives, right in your own back yard. I would think the death of millions of innocents would be enough of a reminder that we need to place humans first.
(cont'd below)
The IPCC also wants to deny life saving energy to third world countries, sentencing even more innocent to death. If you had bothered to both read and comprehend what I wrote on your site. you would have seen that the amount of money the IPCC wants spent on mitigation efforts is enough to feed, clothe, shelter and give medical attention to every man, woman and child on Earth.
What is more important Jeremy? Pursuing a disproven hypothesis, spending natitonal fortunes on mitigation that will do nothing, and ignoring the pleas of the suffering? What would Jesus do?
You are truly lost.
In my back yard? When I lived in Madagascar you could get the DDT guys round to spray your house. You had to move out for a couple of days while they did it. It was a World Bank programme and it ran for years, until they replaced the DDT with more modern pesticides. Very few people use DDT now because there are better products on the market, but they can if they want.
I'll post it again for your sake:
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htm
Interesting. It's not what you said it was. You said you had 900 peer reviewed papers that refute AGW, and that's not what it is. There may be some papers that do that, but this is a hugely broad set of studies on all kinds of topics. There's stuff on the magnetism of the earth or snowfall in Sierra Nevada. I'm sure they're relevant, but they hardly 'refute' AGW. As I say, maybe some of them do, but this not a list of 900 papers that refute AGW.
I'm also somewhat bemused to see a Gerald Meehl study in the list however. I sent Gator one his studies the other day and he dismissed it immediately, so it's kind of ironic to see him recommended now.
But thanks for posting the link. I'm sure there's some good stuff in there.
You are again misquoting me...
'I can also provide over 900 peer reviewed papers that either refute AGW or the alarmists’ planned mitigations. '
Also, I did not compile that list. Just because a paper is on the list does not mean that I agree with it's conclusions. Skeptics, unlike warmists, are not a monolithic body of groupthinkers.
We were taught to reasson on our own, how to think instead of what to think.
You misrepresent climate scientists. There are bad ones, sure, but many are aware of the gaps in their knowledge, working to understand it better. I guess mr Meehl would be one of them.
You still do not understand the list. Maybe you should study it before further commenting.
I do not smear climate scientists. I call frauds frauds. Dr Lindzen and Dr Christy are wonderful people who can think on their own. You never catch them reflexively demonizing CO2 while igoring that giant burning ball in the sky.
You misrepresent me. You misrepresent the list. You do not understand either.
One more thing you still do not get. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.
Everything is fine where climate is concerned. Use your journalism training to find a real problem and fix that.
"Now, thirty years later, it is vividly apparent that DDT was NOT hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world. The results were DISASTROUS: at least 1-2 MILLION people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 MILLION or more lives NEEDLESSLY lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since THERE WAS HOPE OF ERADICATING DISEASE ALTOGETHER when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized."
Who cares what excuse was used? The science of the day showed it was safe and yet zealots still pushed through a ban. Zealots like you.
I grew up in Madagascar and then Kenya. In the 80s and 90s, DDT spraying was common. That was after the worldwide ban. Why? Because DDT was banned for use in agriculture, because it was harmful to wildlife. You could continue to use it to spray for malaria. Get your facts straight before you accuse people of basically perpetrating a genocide!
That's their best defense...
'to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible.'
Truth hurts.
And welcome back to the endless circle of me stating a fact that you can verify in two seconds, and you ignoring it entirely.
Do you want to look up the details of the DDT ban? Never banned for disease control. The supposed DDT genocide argument is a fiction endlessly repeated by those opposed to environmentalists. It is utterly unfounded, can be knocked down in seconds, and nothing but blind denial keeps it running.
For the last time, look up the ban, and you will find it was never banned for disease control. It is still used for it, except that DDT is a 19th century invention and there are far better products on the market now.
But, you're not going to look it up, are you? You'd rather believe the fiction.
"In South America, where malaria is endemic, malaria rates soared in countries that halted house spraying with DDT after 1993 -- Guyana, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela. In Ecuador, DDT spraying was increased after 1993, and the malaria rate of infection was reduced by 60 percent. In a 2001 study published by the London-based Institute for Economic Affairs, "Malaria and the DDT Story," Richard Tren and Roger Bate say that "Malaria is a human tragedy," adding,"Over 1 million people, mostly children, die from the disease each year, and over 300 million fall sick."
How you as a 'Christian' can condone lying, especially lying that kills innocent humans is beyond me. Are you really going to defend the DDT ban? Carlson? Soros?
Keep digging!
So by quoting you I am misrepresenting you? How do you figure? I took the text straight from your webpage, and did not edit.
You sir are losing credibity with each post.
Lobby your MP at Tea Time for Change
Posted on May 23, 2011 by Jeremy
Here’s a neat opportunity to speak up for international development. Tea time for change is a mass lobbying event taking place on Thursday June 9th at Westminster Central Hall. It’s a chance to meet your MP, share a cup of tea, and talk to them about aid, the Robin Hood Tax, and tax havens. Most importantly, it’s about communicating to your member of parliament that international development matters to you, their constituent.
The event is organised by a coalition of partners including ActionAid, CAFOD and Oxfam, and will run from 11:30 to 4:00, with speakers and seminars and more. Details below, and check out the website for more information.
(cont'd below)
CAFOD...
"George Soros and NGOs call for rules to require corporations to disclose payments"
"The coalition includes Amnesty International, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Oxfam, Save the Children and Transparency International."
Actionaid...
"Soros Proposes Fund to Unlock Climate Talks"
"Environment groups welcomed Soros' idea. "The proposal is an exciting initiative that deserves further consideration," said ActionAid's climate justice coordinator Tom Sharman."
Oxfam...
Billionaire investor George Soros has proposed a way to free up funds to help the developing world adapt to climate change...Charity group Oxfam gave its backing to the proposal and called on developed countries to make firm financial commitments.
Then follows the marvelous story how the hard-working, modest youth, saving his pennies and pfennigs, became a global financial with huge quantities of money of non-transparent origin, and hidden from the tax men on the secretive island of Curacao, Mr. Soros plans and executes pirate-style attacks on national currencies, shatters their exchange-rates on the world money markets.
Yeah, Soros who has made himself filthy rich off the backs of hardworking human beings, ro9bbing them of their savings.
(cont'd below)
The second issue is the revelation that Wallis' publication Sojourners has received very large grants from far-left billionaire, George Soros. Records show that Sojourners (which couldn't survive if it had to depend on its readership alone) has been given grants involving hundreds of thousands of dollars from Soros, the same fellow who has given millions to abortion, atheism, same-sex marriage, and tyrannical government schemes.
Jeremy may think he is a Christian, just as Wallis does. But Wallis does not believe in individual salvation, but 'collective' salvation. Jesus did not preach this.
The current pope has said that...
"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."
Pope Benedict XVI
My observation is that it is no different than The Goose That Lay The Golden Egg.
They have a script they follow. I have heard their propaganda for decades now. They need to be exposed for the fakes they are. I think this article shines light on a number of issues and shows that it is all about the money and power they want over us and nothing to do with real science.
'Carson, not very scrupulous, implied that the renowned Albert Schweitzer agreed with her on DDT by dedicating Silent Spring "to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said 'Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.'" Professor Edwards doubted the implication. He got a copy of Schweitzer's autobiography. Dr. Schweitzer was referring to atomic warfare. Professor Edwards found on page 262, "How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us."
Sound familiar?
(cont'd below)
The ends justifies the means in their 'holy' crusades.
When you see socialist / corporate / demonic plots to take over the world, that's not alarmism?
That is correct. I can quote the plans for a New World Order straight from the billionare's mouth, the one funding this garbage.
In case you did nto understand. What I just said is that I can back my claims with irrefutable facts where you cannot.
“The main obstacle for a new world order is America” -George Soros “The main obstacle for a new world order is America”
“An orderly decline of the dollar is desirable.”
“when you try to improve society…adverse consequences occur…”
“Happiest year of my life, the German occupation”
“I have had a messianic illusion since childhood ”
All direct quotes from George Soros, your buddy.
I want you to prosper and be happy. And I believe you understand what that means for you more than do I. You should be free to exercise your rights without abrogation, as should I. Why are you so surprised to learn that the climate change pushers would like to bend your life for the sake of profit? Albert Gore has already pocketed millions from carbon credit trading. Oil companies, energy companies, some commodities traders, General Electric, members of the Pew Foundation (a central AGW pusher) have the most to gain from the AGW context. Since you so belligerently believe in the AGW context, you should already know those with the largest carbon footprints will profit the most from the rules for sequestration they make. Do you refuse to believe you'll be a resource for money and credits in their system. Or are you just stupid like think?
I challenge you to study the profit motives of the AGW pushers.
I'm questioning your wisdom, your ability to understand human nature. Robert Higgs wrote _Crisis_and_Leviathan_, in which he explains how the state, lobbyists, lawyers, corporatists, socialists, etc., use fear as leverage to increase their own wealth and power at your expense, because your weak and, frankly, stupid (their belief, not mine).
Here's their strategy in simplest terms:
1. Create the perception of a crisis (like global warming).
2. Proffer a pre-determined, convenient solution (like carbon credit trading).
3. Lobby the public and Congress with the solution for laws (put on sarcastic displays of an animated polar bear demanding immediate, knee-jerk action).
4. Profit by force (government mandates for pollution credit trading).
5. Create the perception of another crisis (Obamacare).
Many companies are very adept at this strategy, have mastered it over decades.
Hey David! I think Edward Bernays' "sauce" would go well with this.
Indeed, Bernays has to be an inspiration and mentor for the latest big liars pushing the regulatory and crisis agendas. Did you notice how the global warming hype began revving up as the Cold War was winding down? It's no coincidence that the Pew Foundation members include some of the world's largest corporations, including DoD contractors, energy companies, banks, etc., which will profit immensely from the climate change agenda.
It's all about creating the conditions and restrictions defining who makes money and who pays, by force. Only a true SUCKER could disagree at this point.
Of course I'm aware of Alinsky, but haven't read his tripe. Corporatism, mercantilism, fascism also seek those same ends. The left LOVES to nis-name corporatists as "capitalists" when the former is simply using strategies from the left's playbook.
Capitalists appreciate the need for robust, voluntary exchange; corporatists, fascists, socialists only appreciate laws that force exchange and, ultimately, destroy economies.
The government cannot mandate prosperity, but it can be used as a tool to confiscate wealth toilers to the point nobody's willing to toil. Based on the number of people I'd like to fire in my department, the strategy is working. My cynicism is learned.
David gets moved to the front of his class!
It's just as when the left calls Nazi's right wingers. The official name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist Party and they loved big government.
Since the media is virtually controlled by the left, they take full advantage of redefining words and history.
Are you aware that many environmentalists are against carbon trading? That many of us can't stand the trivialising of the debate through polar bear animations?
The differnce is that those people are trying to build a better society for mankind. The alarmists are nothing but destroyers of wealth.
Most people are araid of the unknown, and they lack to confidence to be positively cynical. If you study your Bible, you'll understand that God challenges us all to rise above our human nature, to forsake greed, lust, power, to avoid being manipulated by those who have less than our best interests in mind.
Albert Gore is a charlatan, and he is a central figure in the AGW context. A former C-grade divinity student, Gore probably has an idea what compels the average under-confident person kowtow. History if brimming with people like him, and with people like you.
Some of us value our freedom, our liberty, our ability to think for ourselves over the selfish goals of frauds like Gore & Co. As I said above, you need to study history, and throw in a lot of behavioral psychology while your at it. Please!
makewealthhistory.org/2011/05/12/climate-change-denial-by-haydn-washington-and-jon-cook/
Feel free to visit, it is well put together, just not factually accurate.
Jeremy was also very polite, especially when compared to the trolls we normally see. He did not engage in name calling and seems to be a decent guy, just misguided.
His affinity to George Soros is disturbing and unhealthy for any Christian (human). Those who believe that their voting record will get them to paradise will be rudely surprised. Those who work to enrich governments at the expense of the poor will also have a warmer future. Paying taxes is not charity.
Lost sheep.
Conversely, the only thing anthropogenic about climate change is the exchange of wealth by force; just like any other crisis structure, the strategy is to maintain the establishment's grasp on power through the ignorance, fear and compliance of the masses. Ask Nimrod; ask the Mayans; ask Hitler; ask Albert Gore; they'll suggest a monumental lie and smear campaign will work to manipulate mass trends for selfish gain.
Will we ever evolve to the point we refuse to be manipulated by fearmongers and frauds? The climate change context and its pushers have become intolerably absurd.
(continured on next post)
This would be logical since the planet is not getting bigger or smaller, then the tectonic activity would then cause increased subduction and storing more water as well as causing increases of volcanic activity raising CO2 levels. When there is subduction, more energy is available for volcanic activity and for removal of the oceans waters, as well as the new crustal materials with gasses released at the mid ocean ridges. It is all part of the planets cycles and humans have nothing to do with it.
Did anyone tell you that it is a paracite that caused the deformaties?? They went all out to blame everything else, but not a word for the actual cause.. This sounds like what this climate change myth is all about - nothing but hype.
About two years ago, there were reports of two headed fish in Australia. They blamed agrichemicals
Any imperfections in nature are man's fault, by default
30 million tons is clearly wrong. One coal-fired power station at Port Augusta in Australia emits 3.6 million tons CO2.
I'm a skeptic. I was simply pointing out an error, nothing more, nothing less. You shot yourself in the foot.
PS: if your having a green movement, Crowbar, maybe, just maybe you should see a doctor about that, and not a PHD Doc, I’m talking a Medical Doc
Grow up, Russ, you twit.
I'm a skeptic. I was simply pointing out an error, nothing more, nothing less. You shot yourself in the foot... twice.
Reread Cole's responses to me... he didn't "shut me up real fast" as you claim. He thanked me, and made the point that correcting errors is important before someone uses the error to reject the whole article.
Once again... grow up.
PS: if your having a green movement, Crowbar, maybe, just maybe you should see a doctor about that, and not a PHD Doc, I’m talking a Medical Doc
When it snows up here, all arguments about AGW will finally cease
Also seeing well above average precipitation. These are signs we would expect to see during a solar minimum induced cooling phase. We often share anecdotal reoprts here, it is the grassroots of climatology. Thanks for sharing.
Don't let Russ bother you, he HATES alarmists, and I think you spooked him. I also was unsure at just what your original post was aimed, but I understand completely now, accuarcy and honesty on our side is imperative. Without integrity we would be little better than the alarmists, and we would lose this debate.
Russ will grow on you, if not up!
I also once attacked a fellow skeptic here because I mistook him for a warmist. This debate has become very personal for many of us, and we need to count to ten sometimes before we post. I am as guilty as the next guy.
It is not only wrong to assume and attack, it is counter productive. We as skeptics are not a monolithic body. We are often quite diverse in our ideas of what is driving climate and what if anything should be done about it.
Personally I cannot wait til CO2 is found not guilty by world goverments, truly allowing us to agree to disagree.
Imagine how far we could push climate science and good stewardship once that ridiculous roadblock is gone.
Upcoming forecast shows (for Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday/Memorial Day)
Highs: 59, 69, 73, 82
Lows: 47, 54, 58, 64
Currently @ 02:16am is is 46.6F heading for the predicted low of 41.
So over the next few days, some warming.
Over the last month or so, cooler than average.
Is it anything to get excited or worried about?
Only if you're younger than 30 or 40 and can't remember (or weren't alive) in the 70's.
This is spring like it used to be, no A/C needed just open the windows during the day and throw an extra blanket on the bed at night.
Between my property and the State Park a few miles away, there is an abandoned road called 'Skilift Road'. In the mid seventies a couple of investors started building a ski resort here, based upon the fact that temperatures were lowering and snowfalls were increasing. Gosh, if only scientists had been smart enough to warn them that climates have cycles, it could saved then financial ruin.
Let's hope science is growing up and the same thing does not befall our goverments.
This will come to an end soon enough, It just makes me wonder how many will have to suffer before it does.
www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-nye-science-guy-falsely-claims-not-many-countries-beside-us-have-tornadoes
The man just does not know when to say, "I don't know'.
Oh please, give me a hard question. He is the one to say he is right now. Has he ever actually admitted to being wrong?
Apparently (to follow the script so far)
Global cooling in the 70's was a result of aerosols which resulted in the move from freon to the new crap, all the hype about CFC's etc.
So we cleaned things up and it started warming because of all the CO2 (which didn't have all those mean old CFC's and aerosols beating it silly on a regular basis keeping it from doing it's job as a pollutant and source of warming).
But now (act who the hell knows, scene too damn many) it appears those evil aerosols are at it again this time with their sinister plot of making the models incorrect whilst holding reality and empirical evidence at particle point forcing them to falsify the models...