|
"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. "When a bureaucracy's reason for existence is threatened, it typically generates new missions." Desperately Seeking Mission: Why the State Department's Gone Green --- Peter VanDoren "CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia "Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo "To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University "Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology "I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket. Look at the below data, follow the links, learn the truth and stop being a "useful idiot" for those who want nothing more than total control and all the money! Carbon Dioxide - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
Car Exhaust Car Exhaust consists of:
Smog Smog consists of:
SUVs - Since the mid-1970s, the fuel economy of SUVs and light trucks has improved by nearly 60%. (Source)
Air Quality in America - The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally "polluting" activities (Source)
It took me only 11 minutes to find these scientists, and links to literally tens of thousands more like them (over 30,000). With that being said, how can any reasonable, thinking adult believe that the "debate is over" and that the "science is settled"? CO2 is not a pollutant, it is not toxic, it is not responsible for Global Warming, it is responsible for life on this planet, and a critical trace element for life continuing. It is not, however, ever going to be responsible for what politicians, movie stars, eco-terrorist activists, and greedy cap 'n' trade proponents say it is, toxic pollution. Those words more appropriately describe Al Gore and his fawning sycophants as the fear and hate mongers they truly are.
Trackback(0)
Comments (6)
  written by R James, July 11, 2009
If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then so oxygen. Anthropogenic global warming is an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately doesn't match real data.
 written by dcedit1, July 13, 2009
While this article is a commendable effort, it really doesn't prove anything.
First, most of the people you cited are specialists in only small subsets of the total climate change field (botany, meteorology, etc.) Thus, while they may be more qualified to speak on such matters than you or I, they are hardly experts on the full implications of CO2 as relates to warming. Second, the point is not that CO2 is a pollutant in the traditional, Clean Air Act-regulated sense. The point is whether it raises global temperatures, which was only minimally discussed. While interesting, discussing CO2 as a traditional pollutant isn't really relevant to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. The issue is not whether CO2 is bad - no serious scientist says it is. The issue is whether A) -too much CO2 is bad (note: for the climate, not for humans), and B) - are humans causing there to be too much CO2. Neither of these was discussed at length, leaving me no more "enlightened" than before I read the article. As a final note, on the quote: "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming..." It's interesting to note that this has actually been studied http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/..._final.pdf, and in fact, statistically, it is a "fringe" that deny global warming, at least among those actively studying it. I'm not sure what this says about the scientific community, but it should certainly be taken into account when talking about global warming.
 written by Texas FrogSoup, July 14, 2009
Dear dcedit1,
You wrote: “really doesn’t prove anything” Interesting that you would dismiss the statement of one of those who was ON the panel, who worked ON the report. Oh and by the way, this was not the only one who worked on this report and later refuted the conclusions of the politicians who wrote the IPCC report, there were more than a dozen who said their work had been subverted, edited, “doctored”, or out and out changed to “fit” what they wanted the report to show. Of course, I don't know how YOU do math, but since there were ONLY 52 scientists who were on the committee that generated the report, I sort of think a dozen out of 52 is like, I don't know, a LOT. You wrote: “specialists in only small subsets of the total climate change field” Ok how about these then: “The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics; thermogenics, analytical chemistry; radiant thermogenics; and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.” Gosh, you still think that those who say man-made global warming is crap are in “small subsets “ of the science? The report that paragraph is talking about can be found at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...ort#report You wrote: “ the point is not that CO2 is a pollutant . . . . the point is whether it raises global temperatures. . .” Wow, you are too clever for words, but apparently you missed all the discussions by scientists who ARE experts IN the field relating to the thermogenic properties of CO2 (not a “subset” speciality), go read this to begin with: http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored_by_Atmospheric_Gases.html which says at one part: "Ma*s of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.000614 kg (obtained by multiplying density by volume, that is, 0.000614 kg/m^3 x 1 m^3). Cp = 871 J/kg*K ΔT = 0.62 K Δt = 60 s Indicated Formula: q Stored = m (Cp) (ΔT) / Δt Introducing magnitudes: q Stored = 0.000614 Kg (871 J/kg*K) (0.62 K) / 60 s q Stored = 0.534794 J/K (0.0103 K/s) = 0.00553 J/s (Joules per second or energy per unit time) E = 0.000553 J/s (1 s) = 0.000553 J = 0.001321 cal-th Equivalence in ΔT = q / m (Cp) = 0.001321 cal/ 0.000614 kg (208.17 cal/Kg*°C) = 0.01 °C Since each kilogram of CO2 received 0.001321 cal, the temperature of each Kg of CO2, and therefore the entire volume of CO2, increased by only 0.01 °C. Note: If we take the last report from Mauna Loa for this algorithm, the ma*s of CO2 would be 0.00069 Kg. The change of temperature would be 0.0062 °C. The difference between the ΔT produced by 0.000614 Kg and the ΔT produced by 0.00069 Kg of CO2 is negligible (0.0062 - 0.00553 = 0.00067). To cause a variation in the tropospheric temperature of 0.52 °C (average global temperature anomaly in 1998; UAH) required 1627.6 ppmv of CO2, a density of atmospheric CO2 which has never been recorded or documented anywhere in the last 420,000 years. (Petit et al. 1999) The total change in the tropospheric temperature of 0.75 °C was given for the duration of one minute of one year (199  (UAH); however, CO2 increased the tropospheric temperature by only 0.01 °C. We know now that 1934 was the warmest year of the last century in the United States of America. Where did the other 0.74 °C come from? Answer: it came from the Sun and from the remnants of supernovas." AND just in case you decided not to read through the entire report, let me give you this paragraph, which had several similar conclusions all accompanied by the proofs, formulas and the math: “We would be mistaken if we were to think that the change of temperature was caused by CO2 when, in reality, it was the Sun that heated up the soil. Carbon dioxide only interfered with the energy emitted by the soil and absorbed a small amount of that radiation (0.0786 Joules), but carbon dioxide did not cause any warming. Please never forget two important points: the first is that carbon dioxide is not a source of heat, and the second is that the main source of warming for the Earth is the Sun.” And as far as deniers and skeptics being only a “fringe”, well, at last count of that “fringe” there are OVER 30,000 scientists (that’s thirty thousand) who say, “No, MAN did not and cannot CAUSE global warming with CO2”(those are just the ones IN the related fields by the way), so as for your ONE source quoting that they “researched” it and declared it “fringe”, I think they are morons. But hey, that is just MY opinion and while I'm not an expert in any related scientific field for global warming, I CAN recognize idiocy when I see it. Let me see, who do I believe – 52 (fifty two) scientists who worked on the IPCC report, many of whom have now refuted the report as being fraudulent and nothing more than what the politicians manipulated and twisted it into saying, OR do I consider the writings, peer-reviewed, documented, scientific, observed, papers of over 30,000 scientists, many Nobel prize winners themselves, many who are heads of places like NASA, who say AGW is crap, total bull sh it (sorry, I’m paraphrasing that for them, my words, not theirs, I think they use words like “rubbish”). wow, tough call, but I think I'm going to go with those (over)30,000 scientists who know what they are talking about and do NOT have an 8.4 million dollar personal investment in a Carbon emission credit Brokerage company (Al Gore).
 written by mememine69, July 18, 2009
The GloBULL Warming Theory is officially now a 23 year old liberal WMD scam misleading the country to war under false pretenses. Calling a country to battle against a counterfeit enemy is treason and we pray the courts will condemn these politicians and scientists to the severest of punishment they disserve.
STOP GLOBAL DOOMING Here are the denier’s observed facts: -A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition. -Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory. -La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers. -Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault? -Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory. -10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory. -Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming. THE THEORY WAS WRONG. MOVE ON. Be responsible environmentalists and stop chasing a false crisis from CO2. Work on real pollution and stop scaring our children with this. Let’s all get ahead of the curve preserve our planet, not save it from a mistake with more needless fear. Peace!
 written by Ian Morill, November 12, 2009
Hi, Interesting discussion. I have been campaigning and studying environmental issues for about 30 years now. I have a scientific background (if somewhat limited) still i have the ability to reason in a deductive rather than an inductive way. It seems to me that the whole CO2/global warming/climate change issue is a bit of a red herring. Decades ago it was 'acid rain' then it was 'the ozone layer/cfc's' then 'the rainforests' the point being that so many thousands/millions of years ago there came about a set of circumstances on this p lanet that allowed our existence, a set of conditions that made it possible for us to evolve into human beings. Now it also stands to reason that if you significantly alter those circumstances , those conditions, then that will ultimately have a negative impact on our environment. in other words can we really improve on the very circumstances, conditions that brought about our existence. The answer is obvious. For many thousands of years the human population was pretty constant at around 300 million.Then in a blink of an eye, ie. from around 1750 till now the population shot up to around 7 billion , set to rise to 10 billion by 2050. That is not only amazing but disturbing. If it were any other animal it would be considered a plague. Now put together a ma*sive human population plus industrialiastion and that is going to significantly alter the environment. ie. the conditions that allowed us to be here in the first place.Put CO2 to one side. We are pumping all manner of man made chemicals into the atmosphere, cutting down rainforests, created a dependence on fossil fuels (that are fast running out), causing a ma*s species extinction event (only about the 6th in the planets history) producing food in a very inefficient way when billions are starving (yeah meat production creates greenhouse gas emissions, it also needs crops to be grown to feed the animals and ma*ses of water too) So i repeat it's not just about CO2 blah de blah...it's that as an animal we're out of control. Suffereing from misplaced arrogance , that we are somehow superior. We've been around for a very short space of time , yet we have created many different scenarios that might bring about our downfall. We're not clever , we're egotistical and inventive. Those 2 things have brought us to the brink. We think we can invent our way out of this , when the truth is we invented our way into this. We are not the solution we are the problem.We need to wake up to that. But our egos and misplaced arrogance will prevent us from doing so. We see our 'big brain' 'our 'intelligence' (so called) as proof that we are superior. yet isn't it quite convenient that we set the criteria. Why not the fastest, the longest living, the one that causes least damage to the environment. It's a bit like a room full of athletes trying to decide who is the best and the tall guy stands up and says " I know the one who can jump the highest" A cheetah is just fast enough to catch it's prey, a giraffe's neck just long enough to reach the leaves in a tree, but what if, just what if we're not quite clever enough, clever enough to solve these problems ? What if we're just a brief freek of nature that brings about our own downfall. Most of the evidence suggests this to be the case. We're backing ourselves into a corner more and more as time goes on. Species become extinct , why not us ?!!
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Friday, 10 July 2009 21:49 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
Search the RSN Database of 7,000+ Articles
http://www.churchofglobalwarmi...banner.jpg