Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

This is such an important issue which will no doubt effect all of us one way or the other once governments get their way.

The serious introduction of NSF however, would have an incredible positive effect on the numbers being thrown around out there.

Because so many subscribers on this forum have passionate ideas about this subject, I thought we should open an area which would be dedicated to this subject only.

That way, the thousands of visitors we get to to this site, will be able to see quite quickly what postive effects NSF would have if more land owners instigated its principles.

Moderator: webmaster

duane
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby duane » Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:00 pm

SOBERING THOUGHT ON THE 'ENVIRONMENT'


Michael Smith’s editorial on 4BC yesterday seemed to go down very well:

Here’s a way to understand Mr. Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine a path of 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to rid it of human carbon pollution. We’ll have a walk along it:


The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

We’ve travelled 980 metres of the 1 kilometre path with 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are Water Vapour --- 10 metres left.

9 metres are Argon ---- Just 1 more metre to go.

A few gases make up the first bit of this last metre.

The first 38 centimetres of the kilometre – a bit over a foot- is CARBON DIOXIDE. The heaviest of them all.

97% of this CO2 is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural and essential for life on earth and the sea.


So, out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left (about half an inch --- just over a centimetre) which is produced by man.

This small amount of carbon dioxide constitutes the total amount which ‘Global’ human activity puts into the atmosphere and of those 12 millimetres, Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre -- less than the thickness of a human hair, an insignificant portion of the kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. But wait a moment, Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It’s hard to imagine Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.


by Andrew Bolt Friday, August 14, 2009

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:17 pm

Read an article in a rural magazine the other day. All the 'greenhouse gases' that you nasty farmers with your nasty meat producing animals produce all comes from the atmosphere after being processed by plants, and in the fullness of time is returned to the atmosphere via such processes as those nasty 'cow farts'. Seems to me it is just like the short water cycle. So whether you have one cow on your hobby farm or a herd of thousands, it does not change the atmospheric greenhouse gas levels one iota!

gbell
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:03 pm
Location: Mid-north Coast NSW Australia

Postby gbell » Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:04 pm

Apples and oranges. Plants pull the CO2 from the atmosphere, and cows eat those but belch out something different - methane - which is over 20x more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere.[1]

Also, CO2 may be a small percentage of the atmosphere (0.045%), but that doesn't matter if its influence is great. Even though you're a 75 kg human, you don't want a 337 g spoonful of cyanide I'd bet :)

Lastly, the human link to increased atmospheric CO2 is not only intuitively obvious from the sheer quantity of fossil fuels we've burned, but also well studied:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s-updated/



[1] http://www.epa.gov/methane/

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:39 am

Sorry G
By and large we 'guilty humans' (sorry I don't feel in the least bit guilty for eating three meals a day, watching TV or driving a car) are not responsible for the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now while science, dramatically opposite what you would expect, is full of uncertainties, people like the world renowned Australian geologist Dr Ian Plimer (et al) will tell you that the scientific evidence is that CO2 levels lag behind temperature rises, not lead them. Also CO2 levels work to the inverse square law, a small increase has a measurable effect, but bigger rises affect less and less. Now I will admit that Dr Plimer is not a climatologist, but then again neither are Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, Sir Nicholas Stern nor, dare I say, Albert Arnold Gore Jr!
As far back as 1801 Herschel wrote about the correlation between sunspot activity and wheat prices.
I stand to be corrected, but I think it was said here by Peter himself, that termites produce more methane than all of nasty, guilty, polluting humanity, does that mean that we should spend our free time exterminating termites?
The question you should be asking yourself is not how can these guilty nasty humans be killing the world, the question is "Who benefits from an ETS?" Not farmers, not industry, not retailers, not Mr and Mrs mum & dad at home,the answer is; (1)Government(it is just another tax) (2)Commodity Traders.
So lets just shoot this extra tax down and devote what spare time and money that we have to the real problems like the MDBS or stopping another 173 people being killed this year.
Col.

gbell
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:03 pm
Location: Mid-north Coast NSW Australia

Postby gbell » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:53 pm

ColinJEly wrote:By and large we 'guilty humans' are not responsible for the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Dude, nobody's asking you to feel guilty. Your feelings don't have anything to do with facts. You're letting your hopes driving your view of facts.

You also twisted what I said around. I said nothing about leading/lagging CO2 vs. temp, nor did I say anything about ETS.

You're complicating an already complicated issue with faulty logic and word games. So I will bow out at this point ;) Enjoy.

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:02 pm

Duane
There is a new greenhouse gas that puts CO2 in the shade. It makes up 80% of the total greenhouse gases. It is a deadly poison. It has been scientifically proven that exposure to this substance for as little as five minutes will cause death to humans!
What is this pernicious substance..H2O....water vapour! :lol:

Think of the H2OPRS? What about the poor farmers, saddled with another government cost, how are they going to measure all the transpiration from the vegetation on their farms? What about the other side, the small water cycle? How is the government going to compensate them for all the H2O that their land and vegetation sequesters at night after the dew forms?
Cheers
Col.

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:29 pm

Here is a Powerpoint Presentation you might like to watch
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=91a1fbfdd8&view=gvatt&th=123a85c0b98ca3f9&attid=0.1&disp=attd&mime=application%2Fvnd.ms-powerpoint&zw
We all have to make up our own minds. My own view is to not worry about what so-called 'experts' are telling you, just trust your own senses. I have a forty minute walk to the station, I know what the weather is like when I am walking.
A couple of groups of us stood outside Mr Albert Arnold Gore jr's breakfast meeting here in Melbourne recently. We could turn up on a freezing cold morning, but neither Big Al, nor any of his sycophants could be bothered coming outside and answering our questions.
Also here are two youtube videos, I would be very surprised if this young fellow doesn't end up on a current affairs program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZwy1dR0oM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2zECTIKsFs

I would like to state that I am not in the pay of 'Big Oil' or 'Big Coal', however if any of you knows anyone in these fields I would be most amenable to receiving a little graft and corruption, a quarter acre yard is not enough garden for anyone and would most welcome a chance to get a bigger garden! :lol:
BTW as for those 'polluting' coal fired powerstations, the reason they call those big things belching into the air 'cooling towers' is because that's what they are, they are just taking part in Peter's 'short water cycle' and are putting excess H2O into the air!

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:23 pm

I apologise that one of the above links does not take you to where it is supposed to, here is the correct link
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ashby-presentation.pps

The professional farmers and graziers amongst us might particularly enjoy the different sizes of the plants? ;-)

Cheers
Col.

duane
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:31 pm

James E. Hansen:� The "Bernie Madoff" of Climate Science?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The release of emails going back at least to 1996 that affirm the charge of "fraud" levied against so-called "global warming" due to human activity raises questions about the man who has led the charge for this fraud during the past 25 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James E. Hansen, NASA astrophysicist, has been sounding a shrill alarm in the U.S. Congress for more then twenty years, claiming that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, a trace atmospheric greenhouse gas) is responsible for the slight warming during the last several decades of the 20th century and projecting that that warming will skyrocket into future catastrophe!

For almost as long, level-headed scientists whose careers have been spent measuring and studying weather, climate, and climate history have been skeptical of Hansen's doomsday theories supported only by dubious computer simulations of climate driven by faulty assumptions and a paucity of data. For just as long, those skeptics -- or, more accurately, deniers of the "global warming" fiction trumpeted by Hansen and his political puppet, Al Gore -- have been shouting a collective "wait just a minute!"

The international press corps has ignored the pleas of those scientists who recognized from the beginning the flaws in the Hansen theory that rendered the catastrophic scenarios completely implausible. There are very good, sound, fundamental principles of atmospheric physics that refute what has become known as the "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) theory. You can read about some of them in an article by respected meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, 12 Facts about Global Climate Change that You Won't Read in the Popular Press. For current videos on climate change, important research papers, topical websites, books on climate change and much more about this grand fraud, turn to WEBCommentary's Climate Change page.

Bernie Madoff became a household word when it was learned that he had bilked private investors out of more than $60 billion in a Ponzi scheme fraud that dated back to the 1980s. Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, sold his Ponzi scheme to gullible investors by fabricating data that falsified projections of large gains that were to be made. In reality, Madoff was engaged in the classic Ponzi scheme of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

At the same time, James E. Hansen was using untested theories concocted in the absence of any serious natural climate history context and deliberately skewed to create the appearance of a rapid increase in global temperatures during the last few decades of the 20th century. Compared with a host of experts trained in atmospheric physics, meteorology, and climatology, Hansen was ill-suited to investigating climate change. From the very start, his theory that humans were responsible for the slight late-20th century warming rested on a perverted view of what is referred to as "the greenhouse effect." Hansen's scheme was apparently designed to bring billions in funding to NASA, an organization whose mission in space lost its glory with the end of manned moon exploration in 1972.

Hansen's scare tactics were grossly exaggerated to the U.S. Congress in a plea for billions in funding for global warming research. The success of Hansen's fraudulent scheme to bring funding to NASA and build his personal empire is now a matter of record. NASA alone has averaged more than $1 billion each year since 1995 for climate research -- all based on the fraudulent theory espoused by Hansen and promoted by other insider scientists whose primary objective was to create a need for their "research" into the impact of human activity on climate. The level of scientific corruption and collusion in promoting this fraud is now readily apparent from the email traffic revealed as a consequence of the recent compromising of the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU) computers.

The information contained in material unofficially liberated from the CRU's computers is devastating to the "global warming" cabal of scientists who have systematically denied reality, cooked the data, assumed key roles in professional societies and on editorial boards of scientific publications, and engaged in circular "peer review" that assured the fraudulent "science" was given prominence and guaranteed that any real scientific works that refuted the AGW theory were denied publication and prominence.

If Bernie Madoff has engaged in criminal acts by engaging in investment fraud that bilked private investors out of more than $60 billion, then why isn't James E. Hansen even more guilty by engaging in a conspiracy to systematically lie to the U.S. Congress, deceive the American public, and bilk taxpayers out of well more than $50 billion in total U.S. climate research funding based on false pretenses over the past three decades?

The U.S. Congress must launch a full investigation not only of NASA's James E. Hansen and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also the Center for Climate Systems Research, the US National Climate Data Center, Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann (who has been at the center of repeated fraudulent research designed to misrepresent trends in climate), and, last, but not least, no list of global warming charlatans to be investigated could be complete without including Mr. Albert Gore, who has raised the art of propaganda, lies, and deception to a science.

It is time to put a stop, now and forever, to this fraud that claims a miniscule human impact on a trace atmospheric warming element could create a climate disaster. The AGW theory has been shown to be completely without merit on many fronts, both scientific and in the observed record. It is time to bury this nonsense, scrap "Cap and Trade" and any other scheme designed to limit perfectly harmless human emissions of "greenhouse" gases that have not even produced a detectible impact on climate.

This fraud has permeated the U.S. public school system so that today we have children living in fear of fictional climate catastrophe -- all because dishonorable people have sought personal power and financial gain at the expense of climate science and the truth. Such fraud cannot and should not go without severe punishment to set the proper example so that such perversion of science never occurs again.

Contact your House and Senate members today and tell them you are deeply disturbed by these revelations that have permanently tarnished the reputations of NASA, NCDC, Columbia University, Pennsylvania State University and duped political supporters of Cap & Trade and the fraudulent theory of human-caused global warming. Do not ask, but demand a complete and thorough investigation by unbiased scientists and federal investigators similar to those who investigated and revealed the deeply disturbing scientific malpractice upon which Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" curve was based.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Related material:
Dr. Tim Ball on "ClimateGate" - the unauthorized release of the UK's CRU computer files that reveal massive international global warming fraud
Deconstructing Global Warming by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (2 Mb PDF of slides for Dr. Lindzen's presentation)
Lord Monckton on Climate Change, Minnesota October 14, 2009 (17.4 Mb PDF of slides for Minnesota speech)
Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming
Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming by Dr. David Evans
Global Warming - What do the numbers show? by Dr. John R. Christy (Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville)
Monckton Congressional Testimony Follow-up Letter (March 30, 2009) to Reps. Markey & Barton (House Committee on Energy & Enviornment) by Christopher Monckton (pdf) - if you read nothing else on this page, download and read this material.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered by Christopher Monckton
The Missing Greenhouse Signature by Dr. David Evans. (proof that the AGW theory espoused by the IPCC is catastrophically flawed).
The Climatically Saturated Greenhouse Effect (clarifies why greenhouse gases never have been and never will be a significant climate change force).
NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming by Michael Andrews (as seen in the DailyTech).
Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism by Dr. David Evans (shows natural climate change that the IPCC and Al Gore conveniently ignore).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biography - Bob Webster

Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel Webster's brother Ezekiel. Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. A political conservative with objectivist and libertarian roots, he has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 2009 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserve


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

matt
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Brisbane

Postby matt » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:30 am

Very interesting Duane!

Below is an interesting website supporting strong views on climate change
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

Alot of info in there. I believe we are just been led astray by certain people's urged on by false media reports and forced to move into a more controlled society?
I think we should stick to our guns and put our energy in what really matters.
I would say NSF is a good start!

Angela Helleren
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 6:45 am
Location: Victoria

Postby Angela Helleren » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:18 am

Duane,

NSF also has it's share of sceptics... even after all the scientific studies.

COAL-
Nature's fine work over millions of years... unearthed and burned faster than nature can now keep up with!

Had we acted ten years ago on global warming, costs (as with the cost of everything else) would have been far less than today. Australia cannot afford higher temperatures!

Our solar energy pioneers should have been exporting their technology to the world from here...instead China and even the US are the one's who will benefit most from their talents as we were twiddling our thumbs as they left our shores.

Andrew Bolt says, 'we as a population account for so little CO2,' BUT what you won't hear him quote is how much of the worlds CO2 is due to the burning of Australian Coal exported around the world each year???
Many hands make light work.
Unfortunately, too many hands stirring anti clockwise, has spoiled mother natures recipe.
Back to basics.

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:11 am

Here is a story of a guy who is sitting 300m up in the air on his farm, on a hunger strike, because of our stupid governments attitude to PLANT FOOD!
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike

duane
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:02 am

Here is an interesting article on CC by another of our own scientists.

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.a ... eQ&As.html

duane
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:17 pm

Here is an email I received today from J Powys:

For me, there was an interesting outcome as I re-read Peter's
Chapter 12. It really got to me, that reminder. One of the claims
attached to the idea that carbon dioxide causes global warming is
that rain forests produce more carbon dioxide from decaying
vegetation, bacterial and termite action, than they do oxygen, in
other words, rain forests are said, by some researchers, to be "net
emitters of carbon dioxide". Well maybe they are... but usefully so.

To swing from this statement, I have also come to the realisation that
carbon dioxide molecules are remarkably and most thinly distributed in
the atmosphere. From the accepted figures, there are 4 molecules
of C02 to 10,000 molecules of air, or .0378 mols C02 per million air
mols.

Therefore, there are three obvious outcomes,

a) ...as a natural state of affairs, it must be extraordinarily
difficult for one C02 molecule to even "talk to" another one in the
atmosphere .
b) it must be extraordinarily difficult for vegetation, grasses,
shrubs, forests, etc. to take up C02 at this abysmal level of
concentration, and,
c) in terms of the claimed "C02 blanket" this state of affairs must
make it extraordinary difficult for C02 molecules, sparsely dotted
around like no clouds visible in a clear blue sky - to actually make
a "green house" effect, such as we know in a solid, air blocking,
glass roof.

How then do plants get sufficient CO2 to ensure their "life style"?

The answer is simple, given Peter and Willy Ripl's recycling/feedback loop logic, and the information I sent you on rainforest soils. In a
total natural situation, forests, grass shrubs, etc., are basically
self sustaining in moisture, C02 and essential mineral nutrients. Of
prime importance, C02 is produced by decaying vegetation, and this
hangs around close to the soil surface, mostly un-effected by winds
and turbulence (C02 molecules are 50% heavier than air molecules) .
These molecules would have great difficulty floating up to the heady
heights in the atmosphere as portrayed by the climate scientists.

With all the natural decay that occurs from fallen leaves, twigs,
animal waste, etc, worked over by the soil flora and fauna, then
masses of C02 and other essential nutrients are locally produced,
consumed and recycled at a great pace within this intimate local
cycle. This locally produced C02 sustains/supports the surrounding
live vegetation. The speed of this cycle must be measurable in a
time frame of seconds.

Importantly, it follows naturally, as Peter describes, that this same
local self-sustaining cycle is triggered, and sustained by the
addition of mulch material. If we don't interact with nature this
way, then the natural self-sustainability cycle is broken by man's
interference, when he clears forests, ploughs, crops burns,
overgrazes, does mammoth construction of houses, factories and other
developments, etc.

Angela Helleren
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 6:45 am
Location: Victoria

Re: Carbon Dioxide: Put Simply: It's all B.S.!!!

Postby Angela Helleren » Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:30 pm

From the top article-

97% of this CO2 is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural and essential for life on earth and the sea.

So, out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left (about half an inch --- just over a centimetre) which is produced by man.

........................................

Mother Nature knows how to balance her creation. Our (even if small)input just make her job more difficult and her balancing measures more severe!
Most children learn from their mistakes but some children never learn and have to be reminded over and over again!

Cheers
Many hands make light work.

Unfortunately, too many hands stirring anti clockwise, has spoiled mother natures recipe.

Back to basics.


Return to “Carbon Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest