Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt

[Ognir]

[Ognir]

[Ognir]

[rmstock]

Study: Too Little Carbon Dioxide Will Destroy Earth
Written by  Selwyn Duke , Friday, 05 July 2013
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15905-study-too-little-carbon-dioxide-will-destroy-earth

  "Do you want to save the planet? Fire up the SUV this holiday weekend
   and go for a pleasure ride; burn some more coal in your barbecue grill;
   crank up the house's AC; and, generally, aspire to a Paul Bunyan-size
   carbon footprint. Because according to astrobiologist Jack
   O'Malley-James speaking at the National Astronomy meeting at the
   University of St. Andrews in Scotland, life on Earth will suffer a
   carbon-dioxide-related extinction. But contrary to popular-culture
   belief, the problem will be too little of the naturally occurring gas.
   
   
   
   It probably won't ruin any of your plans, as this fate awaits us nearly
   billion years down the geological road, but the process by which life
   may end is rather simple. The Daily Mail reports:
   
      [A]s the Sun ages and grows hotter, greater evaporation and
      chemical reactions with rainwater will take away more and more
      carbon dioxide.
   
      In less than a billion years, its levels will be too low for
      photosynthesising plants to survive, say scientists. When that
      happens, life as we know it on Earth will cease to exist.
   
      With the loss of plants, herbivorous animals will also die out, as
      well as the carnivores that prey on them.
     
   At this point microbes will rule the Earth, though their days in the
   sun — pun intended — will likewise end. As the sun grows even hotter,
   the oceans will evaporate, making the planet inhospitable to all but
   the sturdiest micro-organisms. "Any remaining life will be restricted
   to pockets of liquid water, perhaps at cooler, higher altitudes or in
   caves underground," says O'Malley-James.
   
   While it's probably hard to forecast weather for 1,000,002,013 A.D.,
   many experts have pointed out that CO2 needs to hire a PR team,
   misunderstood and maligned as it is by global-warming proponents. For
   instance, Mike Adams of Natural News asks, "If CO2 is so bad for the
   planet, why do greenhouses pay to produce it?" He then offers the
   answer:
   
      CO2 is a plant NUTRIENT.
   
      Nope, it's not a pollutant that threatens human civilization as has
      been ridiculously claimed by global warming doomsday pushers. CO2
      actually increases plant yields, accelerates "re-greening" and
      improves reforestation of the planet. [Emphasis in original.]
   
   In fact, Adams doesn't mince words, stating:
   
      The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon
      dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against
      Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you
      realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and
      ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into
      the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the
      ocean.
   
   Note here that carbon dioxide is to plants what oxygen is to man.
   People have reduced stamina and more trouble breathing at higher
   altitudes because there's less oxygen in the air; likewise, decreased
   CO2 inhibits plant photosynthesis, which is why botanists pump the gas
   into their greenhouses. This is also one reason the age of the
   dinosaurs was marked by lush foliage blanketing the Earth: Carbon
   dioxide levels were 5 to 10 times those of today.
   
   But while CO2's affect on flora is well established, its influence on
   temperature is a different matter. In fact, some scientists believe
   increased carbon dioxide may actually cool the atmosphere. Writes
   Principia Scientific International:
   
      A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its
      climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon
      dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
   
      NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that
      "greenhouse gases" actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar
      rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of
      the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using
      Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared
      emissions from Earth's upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon
      dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be
      playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet's
      surface.
   
   Whatever the effect of CO2 on climate, many experts also point out that
   the computer forecasting models predicting a steadily warming planet
   are belied by actual temperature records. Wrote the Daily Mail last
   year:
   
      The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to
      new data released last week.
   
      The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists,
      reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was
      no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
   
      This means that the "plateau" or "pause" in global warming has now
      lasted for about the same time as the previous period when
      temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been
      stable or declining for about 40 years.
   
   So if the critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory are correct,
   the only man-made aspect of the matter is the data itself. Nonetheless,
   while it's entirely possible the climate won't be heating up anytime
   soon, the rhetoric surrounding it most surely will.
   [ ... ]"





DAILY EVENTS UNDER FEATURE
The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low
David Archibald | Monday Mar 24, 2014 6:00 AM
http://humanevents.com/2014/03/24/the-carbon-dioxide-level-is-dangerously-low/

   

   

  "The following as been excerpted from Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in
   the 21st Century will be Nasty, Brutish, and Short by David Archibald:
   
   The United States is needlessly penalizing itself and squandering its
   resource endowment, all because of the big lie that carbon dioxide is
   causing dangerous global warming. The Chinese, in contrast, merely pay
   lip service to that big lie. The only reason they are making a token
   effort on the "global warming" front is to encourage Western countries
   to continue hobbling their own economies. One can be forgiven for
   thinking that there must be some truth in the global warming notion
   given how much noise its advocates have made. But as with most causes
   promoted by leftist ideologues, the truth is exactly the opposite to
   their claim. The fact of the matter is the carbon dioxide level of the
   atmosphere remains dangerously low at four hundred parts per million.
   In fact the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the better
   for all forms of life on planet Earth.
   
   Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
   stood at 286 parts per million. Let us round this number to 300 parts
   per million to make the sums easier. Naturally occurring greenhouse
   gases ensure that the planet is 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be
   if they were not in the atmosphere, so the average temperature of the
   planet's surface is 15°C instead of -15°C. Water vapor is responsible
   for 80 percent of that effect, and carbon dioxide for only 10 percent,
   with methane, ozone, and so forth accounting for the remainder. So the
   approximately 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide is good for 3°C
   degrees of warming. If the relationship between carbon dioxide
   concentration and temperature were arithmetic—in other words, a
   straight linear relationship—then adding another 100 parts per million
   of carbon dioxide would result in one degree of warming. We are adding
   2 parts per million to the atmosphere annually, or 100 parts per
   million every fifty years. At that rate, humanity would fry.
   
   
   Thankfully, the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
   temperature is logarithmic, not arithmetic. The first 20 parts per
   million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides 1.6°C of warming,
   after which the effect drops away rapidly. From the current level of
   400 parts per million, each addition of 100 parts per million adds only
   0.1°C of warming. By the time we have dug up all the rocks we can
   economically burn, and burned them, we may reach 600 parts per million
   in the atmosphere. So perhaps we might add another 0.2°C of warming
   over the next two centuries. That warming will be lost in the noise of
   natural climate variation. So much for the problem of global warming!
   As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is tuckered out. On the positive
   side of the ledger, it is very beneficial as aerial fertilizer. The
   carbon dioxide that mankind has put into the atmosphere to date has in
   fact boosted crop yields by 15 percent. This is like giving the Third
   World countries free phosphate fertilizer. Who could possibly be so
   heartless as to deny under- developed countries that benefit, at no
   cost to anyone?
   
   The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the
   atmosphere. The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3
   million years, including some sixty separate glacial advances and
   retreats. The current Holocene interglacial period might last up to
   another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another glaciation.
   Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is
   highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon
   dioxide the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level
   in the atmosphere has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It
   needs to be stressed that plant life shuts down at 150 parts per
   million, as plants are unable to operate with the partial pressure
   differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the atmosphere.
   Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level was
   within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon
   dioxide. The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100
   million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was four times the
   current concentration. For plant life, the current amount of carbon
   dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels
   
   And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping
   into the atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty
   times as much carbon dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the
   atmosphere. As the deep oceans turn over, on an eight-hundred-year
   cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon dioxide now in the
   atmosphere down into Davy Jones's Locker, where it will be of no use to
   man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the
   next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide
   level, after which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the
   atmosphere's carbon dioxide level will be only a couple of percent
   higher than before the Industrial Revolution. Life above sea level will
   therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of the low carbon
   dioxide level.
   
   "Global warming" is an irrational belief whose proponents demonstrate
   no interest in examining scientific evidence that may prove their
   beliefs incorrect. As a simple cult, it has failed to progress much
   beyond the concept of original sin, apocalyptic visions, sumptuary
   laws, and the selling of indulgences. Wind farms are the temples of
   this state-sponsored belief system. This cult doesn't extend to
   building aged-care homes, hospitals, or anything much for the common
   good. Instead it degrades the fabric of society by misdirecting human
   effort. Its true believers can hardly be blamed; the global warming
   cult is not much different from any of the other end-of-the-world cults
   that have preceded it. Society's opprobrium should be saved for the
   gatekeepers who have failed in their duty to protect the public from
   the depredations of the global warming rent-seekers and charlatans. The
   boards and executive staffs of a number of learned societies across the
   Western world have embraced this cult against the wishes of the
   majority of their members...
   
   The fact that the world has not warmed since 1998 (in defiance of the
   global warming scare) hasn't dented cult members' faith. Arguing
   scientific evidence with them is pointless. It will take something far
   worse than a return of the frigid winters of the 1970s to create doubt
   in their minds. That something worse is coming. Millions of people may
   have to endure many harsh years before this pernicious cult is
   vanquished. And until the global warming myth is exploded, the security
   of the United States—and thus of the world—is also at risk.
   
   David Archibald is a climate expert and a fellow at the Institute of
   World Politics."
   

   
   Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short 1St Edition Edition
   by David Archibald
   Hardcover: 208 pages
   Publisher: Regnery Publishing; 1St Edition edition (March 24, 2014)
   Language: English
   ISBN-10: 1621571580
   ISBN-13: 978-1621571582
   http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Abundance-Century-Nasty-Brutish/dp/1621571580

[yankeedoodle]

Recently re-watched a Kennedy Center tribute to Eddie Murphy, and, when speaking about his contemporaries, he mentioned George Carlin, and said "he's funnier than all of us."

Damn right, Eddie. 

[rmstock]

This guy is brilliant, his book even better, and is the most despised work
amongst Governmental Paycheck cashing in NGO Global Warming Climate `change' Scientists.
Read the 1star reviews and the nagging over errors in his graphs ...   

No Need To Read
By dawgon July 24, 2009
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
No, I haven't read the book; don't need to. From its summary and the
other reviews, I know that it dares question the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of
global warming. This is tantamount to denying our complete and utter
dependence upon Government, Al Gore, and BHO. How dare Plimer? How dare
any of you think these thoughts? For your sake and for the children,
BUY THIS BOOK AND BURN IT !!!!!
88 comments | 29 of 168 people found the following review helpful. Was this review helpful to you?

   
   Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science
   by Ian Plimer
   Paperback: 504 pages
   Publisher: Taylor Trade Publishing; Paperback Edition edition (July 16, 2009)
   Language: English
   ISBN-10: 1589794729
   ISBN-13: 978-1589794726
   http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/1589794729

one very interesting aspect dealt with by Plimer is the assertion that :

"* Gross, unscientific, major distortions of data and debate is occurring,
   largely due to ideological agendas, and parallels Soviet Union
   agricultural science and policies."

Knowing how across the world Marxist ideology, combined with a system of
totalitarian branches of Government, has been spread rampant without any
notable counterforce from the public, it's interesting to see how a
former Soviet era Professor from the Cold War era published the
following in 2004 :

   
   The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True Story Of Soviet Science
   by Dr. Vadim J. Birstein
   Paperback: 512 pages
   Publisher: Basic Books (November 10, 2004)
   Language: English
   ISBN-10: 0813342805
   ISBN-13: 978-0813342801
   http://www.amazon.com/The-Perversion-Of-Knowledge-Science/dp/0813342805

[rmstock]

Customer Review
  "406 of 467 people found the following review helpful
    More in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in green philosophy, May 7, 2009
   By Roger McEvilly (the guilty bystander)
   This review is from: Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science (Hardcover)
   Ian Plimer is a Professor of Geology with a background in mining. He is
   a strong independent thinker, with a particular flair for
   interdisciplinary integration and overview, although his books are a
   bit hard to read. They contain a lot of dense information, but are
   perhaps weak on highlighting what is more important, and at times a
   little too emotional and bulldozing for some.
   
   This is a timely book that attempts to survey ALL the basic data and
   debate related to climate change, rather than cherry-picking solely in
   the interests of green ideology. The book is very similar to Lomborg's
   `The Skeptical Environmentalist' (with just as many back-up
   footnotes-over 2000-so at worst it is at least a useful reference for
   alterative views and debates).
   
   There are serious claims in this book; a general one being that data
   and debate about climate change is being suppressed by green ideology.
   Here are some assertions:
   
   * There is no scientific consensus on the causes of recent (~last 150
     years) global warming.
   * Data and debate from solar physics, geological, archaeological, and
     historical circles is ignored in the media and within the political
     process.
   * Gross, unscientific, major distortions of data and debate is
     occurring, largely due to ideological agendas, and parallels Soviet
     Union agricultural science and policies.
   * Amongst other examples, scientific fraud has been committed with
     relation to the `hockeystick' graph of Mann et al. regarding
     temperature in the last ~1000 years, which has been widely circulated
     (eg IPCC 2001), and which shows distorted temperature trends.
   * The influence of changes particularly in the sun, and in cloudiness,
     cosmic rays and volcanoes on climate changes has been under-estimated.
   * There is a correlation between changes in solar activity and earth
     temperatures, including in the last 150 years of warming.
   * Recent global warming since about 1850 is minor and largely not
     related to human activities, but is being driven by the sun and is part
     of a natural climatic variation since the Little Ice Age.
   * There has been no global warming since 1998 (at May 2009), and
     analysis of solar activity suggests a natural cooling trend in coming
     decades, which has already begun.
   * Influence of increase in C02 level on temperature in the atmosphere
     tapers off once a certain level is reached. (Rather than `runaway
     greenhouse', we have 'atmospheric buffer')
   * The `precautionary principle' is not a scientific principle, it is a
     social and political one (I concur).
   * There is no such thing as a `tipping point' in science (I
     disagree-e.g. the term `catalyst' comes to mind).
   * IPCC climate models do not accurately model observed temperature
     trends since 1998, undermining their projected global warming models.
   * Computer models used by the IPCC are `computer games', as global
     climate trends are too big and complicated to meaningfully forecast.
   * The global climate is too big for humans to have any meaningful
     effect.
   
   The books strength is the variety of data, the weakness is the
   convoluted writing style. At worst, one might contend that Plimer is
   guilty of obfuscation, but at least there is a broad overview,
   including real gems you won't hear from extreme greens:
   
   * the very small size of the Amazon rainforest during the last ice age,
   * Strong legal disclaimers about climate projections from the very same
     agencies that want to enforce major legal changes using such data,
   * the strong correlation between sunspots and earth temperature
   * solar activity has increased in the last ~few hundred years
   * that warm periods in human history generally occur with human
     prosperity,
   * Siberian Soviet-age historical temperatures were fudged below -15C
     because towns received a vodka levy when -15C was reached,
   * Parts of Greenland have been cooling since the early 20th century,
   * The US, France, Italy, and UK squabbled over ownership of a new
     volcano in the Mediterranean in the 1800s, which then promptly sank
     beneath the ocean (which Plimer hopes will happen to global warming
     advocates).
   * Global temperatures have been warmer on several occasions in the last
     several thousand years, with no adverse effects, rather, they generally
     correspond to human prosperity.
   * C02 has been much higher in longer geological history, with no
     adverse effects.
   * The use of the `precautionary principle' in banning DDT use resulted
     in an estimated 40 million deaths from malaria
   * Ice is a rock
   * Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas
   * Many western cities have water shortages because new dams are not
     being built due to green politics,
   * `Being creative and riding the waves of change is the only way we
     humans have survived', `sustainable living', on the contrary `is such
     that with the slightest change in weather, climate or politics, there
     is disease, mass famine, and death'.
   
   Suffice to say in short review, there are some good examples of
   environmentally-driven distortion and cherry-picking of data, in the
   worst cases fraud (e.g. Mann's hockeystick), but I suspect, there is
   also errors on his side.
   
   An example which bugs me: new, unpredictably/spontaneously generated
   changes and processes can produce large, longer term effects, (classic
   catastrophism versus uniformitarianism). However, Plimer states: "there
   is no such thing as a tipping point in science". If I read him right,
   this shows to me a basic limit of perception (what about e.g. catalysts
   and saturation points in chemistry?). Charles Lyell, one of the early
   uniformitarians, couldn't see the `catastrophes' written into rocks
   that were staring him in the face, (new, unpredictable changes, can
   produce large scale effects)- and neither could Charles Darwin (one of
   his few errors of judgement); I suspect that Plimer may have a similar
   data analysis problem (but this is just my opinion).
   
   All in all a good overview, and although I'm not sure I agree with some
   of his assertions, I see a lot of value in the books' broader
   discussion of data and debate than is typically found amongst all the
   hot air that surrounds and distorts climate science and policy.
   Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
   Was this review helpful to you? "