Jerryh8391 Weblog

Does Al Gore and the Environmental Nazis, i mean Environmental Caretakers, know what this guy wrote? They need to get him discredited and fired for writing something against Al Gore’s “Scientific consensus”?

Of course we all know that Al Gore question to the scientists was “do you like money?” They scream “YES!”  And Al says “Global Warming will make us BILLIONS!”

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489

Why are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, particularly the relatively small amount emitted by human activity, the sole focus of most climate change debates?  In scientific circles, CO2 is referred to as a ‘trace gas’ that, for hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume.  Even among the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG), CO2 accounts for less that 4%, with water vapour being by far the most significant GHG.  CO2 is clearly a miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and cause climate change.

Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel, which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.

At 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume, CO2 levels are now, in a geologic sense, at their lowest in 600 million years. For example, during the exceptionally cold Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today.  At other times, warm temperatures occurred when CO2 levels were high. During this period, there was no consistent correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. When, in more recent millennia, a correlation appears evident, temperature changes before CO2.  Aside from forecasts of still primitive computer models, modern climatological research consistently shows that there is no scientific justification for the CO2/climate hysteria that has so gripped mass media and politicians.

Attempts to maintain the focus against CO2, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous. Incredibly, CO2 is branded by many as a ‘pollutant’ – the continual references of Al Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer to “global warming pollution” are prime examples – and some governments have even labeled CO2 as a toxic substance.

In October 2007, Rod Bremby, secretary for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, disallowed permits for coal-fired electricity generating plants, citing an attorney general’s opinion that he could do so if a particular emission “constitutes air pollution and presents a substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the environment.”  According to the Garden City Telegraph in Kansas (ref.), Bremby said in a press release, “I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health.”

Nigel Calder, former Editor of New Scientist magazine, refers to much of today’s global warming, anti-CO2 movement as “Medieval environmentalism”.  Such alarmists, Calder explains in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle, embrace climate change dogma, saying to themselves, “Let’s get back to the way things were in Medieval times and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines.” Calder says that for extremists, CO2 is “an emblem of industrialization”, something they oppose with a passion.

You can stop an engine by pinching the fuel line or by plugging the exhaust. Medieval environmentalists obviously recognized that squeezing the fuel line of society would cause a massively negative public reaction.  So, instead they have succeeded in getting our media and, and so our politicians, to identify CO2, the primary exhaust product of modern civilization, as responsible for killing the entire planet, thereby achieving their objectives indirectly.

So, how low would anti-carbon dioxide crusaders consider pushing CO2 levels, if they were able? At 250 ppm, plants suffer and at 150 ppm most die, resulting in no oxygen and no life on the planet. Maybe that answer is the objective, or is it just the people who should go?