Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

The Truth about CO2

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:34
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Professor David W. Keith. Geoengineering Psychopath!

Published on Feb 3, 2017

David W. Keith gatekeeper for the Military Industrial Complex’s Covert Geoengineering programs. For more Information on Geoengineering,Solar Radiation Management,Climate Engineering,Weather Modification and other programs click the links below.. -FAIR USE STATEMENT This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available within this trans-formative or derivative work for the purpose of education, commentary and criticism, is being distributed without profit, and is believed to be “fair use” in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

REBUTTAL: Inconvenient Truth: Reducing CO2 Emissions Will NOT Save the Planet!
20 January 2009
An editorial by Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA. Reprinted with Permission.

I talk about the fallacy of Man-made Global Warming to whomever will listen. I talk to many groups, large and small about how AGW is just bad science. I tell them that study results are hand-picked and modified to fit a pre-determined conclusion. That is: Man-made carbon emissions are responsible for accelerated, dangerous global temperature rises.No Longer Supported
Many are enlightened by my graphs disproving the fictional Hockey Stick. They are amazed when I cite peer-reviewed studies that prove Polar Bears aren’t drowning and that arctic sea ice and glaciers are actually increasing in size. They laugh in disbelief when I flash photos of official surface stations next to air conditioners and barbecue grills. And then there’s the icing on the cake: I bust out IPCC’s failed computer model plots that show world temperatures going up. The room goes quiet. “But notice,” I say to my audience, “how the actual temperatures over the last decade are going down!” I then crumple up a copy of of the IPCC’s 2001 Report and pitch it into the trash in dramatic triumph while shouting, “The Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis is pure HOGWASH!”

Applause, applause, applause. Some shake their heads in disbelief. Many more, though, smile and say, “I thought so!”

Its a great feeling for me. Another seemingly successful presentation. Another positive attempt to correct the mis-information spread by the AGW alarmists.

Still, there is always at least one person in every group who raises a hand and asks that haunting question, “But shouldn’t we want to save the planet?”

“Hey,” I think to myself, “Weren’t you listening to me?” Maybe, this person wasn’t paying attention while I was showing off all of my pretty-coloured charts and graphs. Or maybe, I, as a scientist, am only seeing this issue through proxies, homogenized data and hand-picked correlations. Maybe, to the average, non-science person, Global Warming is a much simpler issue. Maybe the AGW boils down to a moral responsibility. As one middle school student told me last week, “If we are hurting the planet, then we should do something about it!”

As I have learned through conversation, other colleagues hear the same statement. This is an issue all of us in the scientific community need to address everytime we speak about Man-Made Global Warming. So lets, start now! I will begin the journey here:

Listen up, Folks: Reducing man-made CO2 emissions will NOT save the planet! The Man-Made Global Warming Theory that the UNIPCC hangs its hat on, states that increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide will trap more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. This will then increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, the two greenhouse gases will combine their super powers to increase earth’s surface temperatures to dangerous levels.

But, my friends, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on earth. Simply reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.

My “Facebook” buddies are much more esteemed scientists than I. I asked them for their responses to such a question. Here’s what Geologist Don Easterbrook, of Western Washington University told me in a recent e-mail:

“CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulphur, particulates, metals, etc).” He adds emphatically, “We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy.”

In 2001, Don predicted the start of a cooling cycle in or around the year 2007 (spot on, I must say!). “We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly, ” he adds. “If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!”

Professor Geoff Duffy, a Chemical Engineering expert from The University of Auckland in New Zealand adds this, “Caring for the environment is one very important issue, (but) it has little to do with climate change.” Excellent point, Dr. Duffy!

“Carbon dioxide is but a trace, and mankind’s CO2 footprint is a trace- of-a-trace.” He continues, ”CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a valuable feedstock for all plant and vegetable life on which we depend; and the bi-product is oxygen! The atmosphere and the sea buffer all changes. History alone shows that mankind can do virtually little to change climate: but we can keep our local environment clean!”

Richard A. Minnich
Atmospheric Scientist Tim Minnich holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan. He is passionate about the issue. “To accuse one of being unconcerned about the environment simply because they reject the AGW “pseudo-science” is not only illogical – it’s patently absurd.” He goes on, “It’s like suggesting the person who rejects capital punishment advocates murder!”

Tim specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, “I firmly believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to be a vigilant steward of our planet and environment for future generations, and that the reckless spending of energy and resources on a scientifically unsubstantiated fad like AGW is deplorable.” Tim, I couldn’t agree more!

Dr. William M. Briggs

Dr. William Briggs, Meteorologist & Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, shares a similar sentiment: “The answer is OF COURSE we should “save” the planet and “protect” the environment, but in this case there isn’t anything to that needs saving or protecting.” The probability of catastrophic warming is so low, and the costs to protect against radical climate change are so high, that we are better off being reasonably prudent and not panicking by adopting burdensome—and unproven—new rules and regulations.”

Professor Robert Carter runs the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.

“Spending money on cutting back carbon dioxide emissions in the hope that it will prevent hypothetical warming will be no more effective than peering into the entrails of chickens to the weather!”

Incredibly funny, Bob…and absolutely true!

“Meanwhile, in the real, measurable scientific world,” He adds, ”there are a number of urgent environmental problems where spending significant money would produce a significant result.”
Bob’s short list include:

  1. Cheap (probably coal-fired; alternatively nuclear) energy for 3rd world countries, to minimise wood-burning and charcoal fire cooking, and generally allow them to lift themselves out of poverty.
  2. Clean water and sanitation for the same.
  3. Healthy research funding for additional/new sources ofenergy generation, and transport fuel substitution.”

Contrary to popular belief, not ALL politicians support the Man-Made Global Warming frenzy. Marc Morano, sent in these comments from Senator James Inhofe’s Office. Inhofe is the ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.

“A cleaner environment can be accomplished through technology, not command and control regulations. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not solve the alleged climate crisis.”

by: Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA

You can read more from Mark Johnson at his blog Power Of 5 Weather Blog

The TRUTH about carbon dioxide (C02): Patrick Moore, Sensible Environmentalist

Published on Sep 13, 2016

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD is now “The Sensible Environmentalist,” cutting through phony “global warming” science with facts. Here, he explains why carbon dioxide (C02) is a hero, not a villain. MORE:… ***



Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.