Is Carbon Dioxide Guilty and Global Warming Settled Science?

If you ask the global warming alarmists, scientists with a liberal agenda who hide and delete research data to fit their talking points, corrupt third world countries that run the United Nations, and the globalist proponents of UN Agenda 21, the answer is yes.

If you ask students brainwashed into the environmental worship of Mother Earth, investors who stand to make a fortune from selling carbon swaps, Hollywood know-it-alls, and bureaucrats who charge carbon taxes, the answer is yes.

If you ask corporations and countries like Brazil who profit from pushing biofuels (ethanol and DieselMaxx), the EPA, those green on the outside and red on the inside who want to bankrupt the coal industry, those who want energy prices to skyrocket, and those who receive huge government grants and subsidies to profit from expensive wind and solar energy, the answer is yes.

If you ask real and honest scientists, 100 of whom took a full-page ad in the Washington Post to denounce the global warming hoax, the protesting people around the globe who are starving or paying much higher prices for their daily food staple, corn, that is now being turned into ethanol, and if you carefully read the evidence and recent scientific data that is not doctored or manufactured, the answer is no.

If the much maligned CO2, a plant nutrient, is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to accelerate the growth and size of their plants? The generators are made in the U.S. and run on propane and natural gas, turning fossil fuels into CO2.

A recent study showed that a slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs, and grasses which produce oxygen. The American Geophysical Union concluded that it was the “fertilizer” effect of CO2 increasing vegetation cover by 8 percent in the last 28 years (1982-2010). Researchers adjusted for potential changes from rain, air temperature, sunlight, and land use.

Nobody can make pronouncements with 100 percent accuracy but it does not stop global warming proponents to say that they are 100 percent sure that man-made CO2 production since the industrial age began is the only culprit for global warming. How can they be so sure? It is the accepted “consensus” of like-minded globalists, not incontrovertible facts. The science of man-made global warming is based on “consensus” and biased computer modeling.

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models, said Professor Chris Folland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful,” said Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University.

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world, said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment. (Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998)

Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo call carbon dioxide the “Houdini of Gases.” They wrote on September 5, 2007 that studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad show “earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade,” contradicting United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that carbon dioxide remains in the air for up to 200 years. “A CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now.”

Global warming alarmists always murky the waters by interchanging “climate” with “weather.” They are two different concepts. It is self-evident that over millions of years, the earth’s climate has changed independent of human activity, due to solar activity, solar flares, cloud cover, ice cap melts, refreezes, and direction of oceanic currents. Catastrophic weather events have occurred prior to the industrial revolution when human activity could not be connected in any way to earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, and floods.

Professor of Climate Science and chair at Macquarie University, Australia, Dr. Murry Salby, the author of the book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,” said that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 present over non-industrialized regions, e.g., the Amazon, not over industrialized regions. Ninety-six percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4 percent is man-made.

Dr. Salby said in his speech in Hamburg, April 18, 2013, “IPCC [temperature prediction] models have no predictive skill.” In other words, global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, there are other important variables such as cloud cover, solar activity, solar flares, oceanic currents that the IPCC modeling did not take into account.

Dr. Klaus Kaiser explained in his article, “Pushing Back on Misinformation,” that there is no such thing as “carbon pollution” or “carbon dioxide pollution.” Carbon is an essential element of anything organic and carbon dioxide is necessary for plant life on earth.

As he points out, if atmospheric concentration of CO2 should drop from 0.04% to 0.02% (most bureaucrats and environmental groups demand to cut CO2 emissions in half – perhaps they could hold their breath or genetically engineer a non-flatulent cow), “it would be insufficient to sustain photosynthesis in most plants. Without growing plants, the bottom of the food-chain would disappear.”
Dr. Kaiser also discredits the theory of “greenhouse gas that traps heat” that had been proven a false hypothesis a hundred years ago but “resurrected in the 1970s by interest groups who saw it as a convenient means to exert control over energy sources.”

Larry Bell encapsulated the true agenda of the maligned carbon dioxide and the global warming proponents in his Forbes article, How Many Things You Do Today Will Kill You Or The Planet?

– Control by environmentalists such as the World Wildlife Fund and Sierra Club (The polar bear population they claimed, unlikely to survive, has made a miraculous recovery. Emperor penguins in Antarctica are going to survive as well and have doubled in population.)
– Wind power (too expensive and only suitable for a few locations; chops up quite a few birds; the darling of liberals as long as the ugly and noisy windmills are not installed in their own back yards)
– Solar power (also expensive and inefficient at night when we need it most; I might add that it needs lots of surface land to deploy the panels, land which is better suited for agriculture)
– Maurice Strong and his 1992 Rio Summit with his UN Agenda 21, “centralized control of every aspect of human life: energy use, water use, housing and stock allocation, population levels, public health, dietary regimens, resources and recycling, social justice and education”

I realized how widespread and powerful the hoax of global warming is when I saw the words of one my favorite fiction writers, Michael Crichton, who described the environmentalist Gaia religion. “We are energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment, just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *