Author: admin

CO2 saves the planet! Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere

By Frank J. Tipler, Physicist

As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent. Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere. Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered. Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, Homo sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use. These wonderful humans, however, worked hard to help the plants. Not only did the humans dig the coal, oil, and natural gas, bringing it to the surface, but they converted these raw materials into the only form of carbon that plants could use: carbon dioxide. Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years. The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, anyone who supports the bill, or any measure aimed at reducing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is “guilty of treason against the planet”! Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once! The astute reader will have noted that Krugman actually accused those who opposed the cap-and-trade bill of “treason against the planet.” What I have done is use well-known science to show that, from the biosphere’s point of view, it is the cap-and-trade bill that is “treasonable.” Remarkably, Krugman assumes that the climatic conditions of a mere century or so ago are the “natural” ones that must not be changed. A very anthropomorphic point of view is being used to denounce humanity. An ultraconservative reactionary political position is being called “progressive.”

Source

The Kind Of Debate Al Gore Hates

By K. Daniel Glover
Unlike Al Gore, Ann and Phelim love a good debate about the excesses of environmentalism, and they proved it this week at the National Conservative Student Conference in Washington. Most of the crowd at the Young America’s Foundation event applauded the message of Not Evil Just Wrong, which exposes the lies about global warming and the DDT scare tactics that inspired today’s environmentalism. But there were a few skeptics who engaged Phelim and Ann in debate both during and after the event. One woman asked whether today’s technology could ensure that DDT does not hurt the environment if used to fight malaria. “There is no evidence that DDT has caused harm to anyone, anywhere, ever in the world,” Phelim said. “But it’s been a very good propaganda campaign.” Ann added that environmentalists aren’t above lying. “You’re safe enough,” she assured. The bluntest exchange occurred a when a man from the Young Britons’ Foundation, who said his father is a member of the British Green Party, made the case for protecting “green spaces” in London. “I would like us to grow up in a world that has green spaces and wildlife and all of the rest of it,” he said, asking Phelim and Ann their views on aviation expansion. Phelim reminded the audience that Gore “has an electricity bill 10 times the average American” and that stopping airport expansion in London also means stopping it in poor countries that need more of that kind of progress. “I really, really, really want to see the day when everybody in Africa and London has Al Gore’s electricity bill,” Phelim added. “It will mean the end of poverty. … And we’re not going to end poverty by stopping airports expanding.” Ann scoffed at the notion that the world is on the verge of losing all of its green spaces, a concept pushed on children in the 2008 animated movie WALL-E. And she praised the value of big cities like London, which contribute to the arts, education and medicine. After the speech, Ann chatted with several college students. One of them, also from Britain, insisted that mankind is to blame for “climate change.” He characterized himself as a moderate and distanced himself from both anti-pollution legislation and environmentalists who say there are too many people on the planet, but he said carbon dioxide emissions are a problem. Ann peppered the man with questions about why the earth was warmer before and whether the United States should impose regulations to address his concerns. Toward the end of the debate, the man noted that he hadn’t tried to escape. “Al Gore walks away,” Ann said in response. “What do you make of that?” “If I had studied the issue in depth and I was armed with facts and statistics [like Gore],” he said, “then I’d stay and argue.” The British student is definitely the exception to the rule. As Ann noted in her speech, environmentalists love to talk about “settled science” and shut down rhetorically whenever they are challenged about the havoc they have wreaked on poor children. After they “do their whole emotional thing about the lemurs,” she said, “they will eventually walk away because they have no answer to your question.”
Source

I Accuse!

In 1898, an article by the great French novelist, Emile Zola was published in L’Aurore. It was addressed to the President of France. Zola accused the military of having wrongly convicted Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish artillery officer, of treason, incarcerating him for years on Devil’s Island. The title of the article was “J’Accuse!” Zola’s courage has been an inspiration for writers ever since.

It is in this spirit that I issue my own version of “I Accuse.” I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, “global warming”, in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called “carbon credits,” based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a role in the alleged warming process. The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade and predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come. I accuse the President of the United States and politicians from both political parties for engaging in this deception for their own purposes, while ignoring the peril to the nation’s economy and future. Billions have been and continue to be misallocated to bogus “solutions” such as solar and wind power, the mandate for an ethanol mixture with gasoline, and the construction of a vast regulatory and grant-making apparatus based on the global warming hoax. I accuse the Obama administration and those members of Congress of seeking to impose a “Cap-and-Trade” bill based entirely on the hoax. It would tax all energy use in America, thus increasing the cost of energy while further reducing the personal income and savings of all Americans. It would codify a bogus market for carbon credits. I accuse all of the scientists who sought to justify global warming by deliberately publishing falsely documented studies or studies that purported to justify the hoax by attributing natural phenomena to global warming. I accuse them of engaging in such practices to advance their careers and for accepting government largess to further the hoax. I accuse the academic community for permitting their publications and research programs to be corrupted by the global warming hoax and for lending the prestige of their institutions to its advancement. I accuse those elements of the nation’s and the world’s media for advancing the global warming hoax in the face of increasing evidence that it is not occurring. It cannot occur at a time when solar activity is decreasing, thus reducing the radiation responsible for much of the Earth’s warming. I accuse those media that continue to advance the global warming hoax via print and electronic broadcasting. I accuse all print and electronic journalists of failing their responsibility to investigate the bogus science put forth and for deliberately disparaging those scientists and others who disputed it, calling them “deniers.” I accuse the U.S. Department of Education for the corruption of the nation’s school curriculums, using them to spread the hoax and indoctrinate thousands of students passing through the system with the belief that global warming exists. I accuse every publisher of school texts that advances this hoax. I accuse former Vice President Gore of advancing the greatest hoax of the modern era and those who joined with him, awarded him honors, and sought to enrich themselves by doing so. I accuse all the “environmental” organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and all others that have spent millions to advance the hoax to advance their collective and individual agendas. I accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of falsely asserting that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that must be regulated when it is essential to all life on the planet. It is vital for all plant life and plays no role in climate change except to react to it. I accuse the EPA, Department of Energy, and Department of the Interior, in collusion with many “Green” organizations, of thwarting the construction of coal-fired and nuclear plants to generate the energy necessary to the growth and expansion of the nation’s economy, general welfare, and security. Lastly, I applaud those many courageous scientists from various disciplines and all others who have stepped forth to denounce the global warming theory with the presentation of legitimate science. The entire world is in their debt. Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Aug. 7th 2009

By The Daily Bayonet

Another week draws to a close, which means another weekly round-up. Discover Greenwich’s dirty secret, Australia’s war on camels, what makes this the best time to be a skeptic and why Americans should pay attention to Spaniards. And don’t miss the bubbly goodness in Part Five. Grab your liquid of choice and dig in to the wonder that is the GWHWRU…

Part One: Al Gore & Friends

Al Gore, the Tennessee titan of global warming, the savior of the scared and profiteer prophet to the pandering masses, has a problem. Mother Nature isn’t cooperating with the agenda. Apparently the halls of Gore Manor echo with cries of frustration, but enough of hanging chads. Preferring to ignore the cold outside, Al has been spreading the only green that matters around Washington to push the ‘climate crisis’ to his political chums. Al forgot to disclose any of his lobbying efforts when he testified in front of the Waxman-Malarkey panel, but hey, he’s a Democrat and that’s how they roll. These days at least. Many people have noticed that Al likes the limelight but prefers leaving the heavy lifting to others. Al’s reluctance to get physical was demonstrated this week as his old boss trudged to visit the King of the Norks to rescue Al’s Current employees. Now that the whole mess is safely over, Al finally gets around to mentioning the names of his employees. John Kerry, he of the long face, is famous for getting his arse handed to him by George Bush in an election. Just like Al. No wonder then that that the losers stick together. It’s like AV club all over again for Al and JK. Al applauds this nonsense from Kerry:

“…a handshake between Nixon and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was enough to change the world. Today, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter and history’s biggest emitter, China and America, must change the world again – and nothing less than a transformation of the energy economy will suffice.”

John and Al go antiquingJohn and Al go antiquing

For the Goreacle, allowing minion ex-bosses and fellow election losers to cover the hard stuff leaves him free to get after the big fish, like campaigning for a .eco domain. While you might expect me to mock this effort, in fact I have to support it. Because .eco would become the Internet equivalent of California – and we’d know where to find all the nuts. Nice and tidy. Conflicts of interest and Al Gore? :

Gore and other members of the Copenhagen Climate Council, including the world’s largest producer of wind turbines, Vestas, present their demands for carbon-trading schemes as altruistic efforts to clean up the planet. In truth, these green-leaning profit-making machines stand to gain significantly if the activities of their less green competitors are hampered by government demands.

Followers of Canada’s David Suzuki, the fruit-fly geneticist turned eco-totalitarian, are taken to the proverbial woodshed by a letter writer from rural Ottawa valley. That’s like Canada’s ‘deliverance’ country, or something.

Part Two: AGW Scaremongers

Click on over to The Daily Bayonet to read the rest!

Concern on Carbon Costs of Camel Cull

Letter to the Editor

Australian PM Rudd proposes to spend $19 million shooting one million wild camels. A big camel probably weighs about a tonne, so Mr Rudd is going to let a million tonnes of valuable meat rot under the Centralian sun. Each camel probably has about 190 kg of carbon sequestered in its body. As it rots, this carbon will turn into about 700 kg of carbon dioxide and dissipate into the atmosphere. If the Australian Senate is silly enough to pass the Wong carbon dioxide Ration-n-Tax Scheme this shootout will thus trigger a huge carbon tax liability. At a carbon emission price of say $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide, the carbon tax on one million rotting camels would be about $28 million. Add to that the actual cull costs of about $19 million and the carbon tax due on helicopter emissions and other activities and the total costs of the cull is about $50 million. Hopefully this bill will not be presented the taxpayers, but will be sent to Cull Commander Garrett. This may convince him to chase up a few old buffalo shooters who could make a tidy profit at no cost to the taxpayer by culling the camels and selling the meat to Taiwan. Or we could sell permits to a few big game hunters. Or sell live camels to the Arabs. Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

By Marc Morano

More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo ‘Religion’; Urge Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ views ‘Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role’

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.” This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments. The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.” “More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added. “The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote. “The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added. “Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.Full Text of Translated Letter By 61 German Scientists: CLICK HERE.

Source

Higher Carbon Dioxide May Give Pine Trees A Competitive Edge

By ScienceDaily

PHOTO: Loblolly trees growing under elevated carbon dioxide levels emitted from towers at Duke Forest’s FACE site. (Credit: Chris Hildreth)

Pine trees grown for 12 years in air one-and-a-half times richer in carbon dioxide than today’s levels produced twice as many seeds of at least as good a quality as those growing under normal conditions, a Duke University-led research team reported Aug. 3 at a national ecology conference.Carbon dioxide readings that high are expected everywhere by mid-century. The findings suggest some woody tree species could, in the future, out-compete grasses and other herbaceous plants that scientists had previously found can also produce more seeds under high-CO2, but of inferior quality. “Even if both groups were producing twice as many seeds, if the trees are producing high-quality seeds and the herbaceous species aren’t, then competitively you can get a shift,” said Danielle Way, a Duke post-doctoral researcher. Way is scheduled to present the results at a poster session on Aug. 3 during the Ecological Society of America’s 2009 annual meeting in Albuquerque, N.M. She is also first author of a report on the study scheduled for publication in the research journal Global Change Biology. Way and her co-researchers collected, counted and analyzed seeds produced at the Duke Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) site in Duke Forest, near the university’s campus. There, growing parcels of loblolly pine trees have been receiving elevated amounts of CO2 around the clock since 1997 in a Department of Energy-funded project designed to simulate natural growing conditions. Their analysis found the high-CO2 loblolly seeds were similar in nutrient content, germination and growth potential to seeds from trees growing under present-day CO2 concentrations. “If anything, they actually seem to be slightly better seeds rather than more seeds of poorer quality,” Way said. “The notion here is that if the trees are producing more high-quality seeds at high CO2 compared to grasses and herbs, then the trees may be at an advantage,” added study participant Robert Jackson. Jackson is Way’s advisor at Duke, where he is a biology professor, as well as professor of global environmental change at the university’s Nicholas School of the Environment. The ultimate competitive outcome will depend on how other trees comparatively respond to high-CO2, said James Clark, another Duke biology professor and Nicholas School professor of the environment who also participated in the study. “We don’t know that yet, because we only have estimates for loblolly pines,” Clark said. Other study participants included Shannon LaDeau, now at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies at Millbrook, N.Y.; Heather McCarthy, now at the University of California at Irvine; Ram Oren, a Nicholas School ecology professor who directs the FACE experiments; and Adrien Finzi, an associate biology professor at Boston University.Source

Genocide-lite: Have one less kid to reduce carbon footprint, says new study

By Steve Milloy

From the Oregonian:

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their “carbon footprint” on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit – have one less child.

And why should we have fewer children?

The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. – along with all of its descendants – is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh. “In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.” In this debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime. Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

Moving past the junk science-fueled notion of the “carbon footprint” and the discredited population-growth and resource-scarcity fearmongering of the likes of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, Western birth rates are already falling precipitously — the U.S. replacement rate is barely at break-even. Having fewer children is tantamount to cultural suicide. Just who would we be saving the planet and its resources for?Source

Obama's Big Lie: "Green" Jobs

By Alan Caruba

If there is one thing Americans began to rapidly conclude following his inauguration in January, it is that President Barack Obama lies all the time and that those lies are often blatant. In pursuit of the “Cap-and-Trade” act that is a huge tax on all energy use in America, Obama’s favorite mantra is that massive subsidies to wind and solar energy producers, as well as biofuel producers, will generate millions of new “green” jobs. Perhaps the worst part of this lie is that they will actually destroy jobs. In the July edition of Energy Tribune, Michael Economides and Peter Glover co-authored “Green Jobs: Fast-Tracking Economic Suicide.” I know Economides and he is internationally recognized as one of the world’s authorities on energy issues. “Creating ex nihilo—literally, out of nothing—used to be a theological concept, God’s prerogative. Today, it seems, President Obama and certain Western politicians claim to possess the ability to do it,” write the article’s authors. “Against all the laws of economics and the marketplace, President Obama and others believe they can create millions of ‘green’ jobs ex nihilo, literally out of thin air, via cap and trade.” There are two driving forces behind Cap-and-Trade. One is the claim that “green” energy producers will generate new jobs if the government just provides a combination of legislative mandates for its use (wind and solar) and, two, that a massive new trading apparatus in “carbon credits” for the generation of “greenhouse gas emissions” will protect the Earth against “global warming.” It is increasingly obvious to everyone that the Earth is cooling, breaking thousands of previous records for cool weather in cities around America and similar conditions worldwide. The tide, too, is turning against the “global warming” hoax that is failing in the face of the obvious cooling weather and climate. Using “global warming” to justify any government mandates or to empower the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is a lie. It is a very big lie. Carbon dioxide is vital to all life on Earth. As the Energy Tribune authors point out, “To generate real industrial jobs, however, you need a basic commodity to trade, such as oil, gas or coal.” This is in marked contrast to wind and solar energy. “The trouble is that alternative energy technologies currently don’t work. That is to say, they remain inefficient, offering a very poor energy return on investment.” “Cut off the flow of public subsidies and the alternative energy industrial revolution would grind to a halt tomorrow.” In the real world, in 2008 the Marcellus gas industry in Pennsylvania generated $2.3 billion in total value added, more than 29,000 jobs, and $240 million in state and local taxes. If you extrapolate that to other sectors of the energy industry, you would be looking at thousands of real jobs, not lost jobs, but President Obama and his sycophants would rather you not know about that. If you had a choice, would you prefer to see wind, solar and biofuel energy producers receive billions in taxpayer subsidies or would you prefer to see independent energy producers permitted to extract oil and natural gas or the coal industry have access to the U.S. reserves that would provide electricity for centuries to come? This is not mere conjecture. The experience of European Union nations demonstrates that “for every green job created, a real job is destroyed elsewhere in the economy.” Carbon regimes drive manufacturing to nations that do not impose limits on coal, oil and natural gas. For example, “Germany’s Angela Merkel is insisting on major exemptions for German heavy industry come December’s global climate summit in Copenhagen. Merkel’s government is also supporting the building of 26 new coal-fired power plants across Germany.” Compare that with one hundred such plants whose construction was thwarted in the United States by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. “In June, deputy head of Poland’s Solidarity trade union, Jaroslaw Gresik, estimated that the EU’s climate policy would cost 800,000 European jobs.” Widely circulated data from a study of the heavily subsidized wind and solar energy industry in Spain revealed that its alternative energy program destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in its economy or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every ‘green job’ created. Consumers there have seen their electricity rate increase by 31 percent. Other independent studies reveal that Obama’s claim of five million new “green” jobs would cost an estimated $500 billion to create. Wake up, America! The Big Lie about “Green jobs” is going to cost jobs. The Cap-and-Trade bill is a massive tax increase. The summer recess is the time to contact your Senator and Representative and tell them you oppose Cap-and-Trade. If it is passed, it will undermine the economy, cost jobs, and leave the nation increasingly dependent on the import of energy resources while our own lay underground, unexplored, untapped, unused. Source