Leading experts say that CO2 controls the planet’s temperature. That is why there was an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 more than ten times as abundant as at present.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
John on The Price Of Telling The Truth… Don Gaddes on Seven Year Drought Killed 40%… Bill Sokeland on NSIDC : Arctic Was Ice Free In… Notes To Ponder on 45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wa… gator69 on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… gator69 on Toto Has Moved! Menicholas on Toto Has Moved! Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Sir Charles on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… Ed Darrell on Phil Jones Removing The 1940…
This will get the sock puppets all unravelled. Geology is not one of their strong suits.
They are more comfortable around hot air and steaming methane.
Most lefties have their head up Obama’s ass for so long, that they can no longer survive in an atmosphere which is not saturated with methane stink.
The hockey team says we need to maintain temperatures at some arbitrary historical average. Why isn’t the same true for CO2 levels? We need to return CO2 levels to around 2,500 ppm — the historical average. Using the trendline, there will soon be no CO2 left at all in the atmosphere. Plants (food) can’t grow without CO2. We only have four years left to act. President Obama needs to do something about this during his final term!
This is really the question that climatologist must answer. If the plant can freeze with very high levels of CO2 how can CO2 control the earths temperature. When they provide the answer I will begin to believe that they might have a clue about how the climate works.
They will tell you that the sun was less powerful then than it is now. CO2 only heats the planet when the sun is strong. But climate change has nothing to do with the sun.
I know there is no logic, but that is their argument.
All future climatology students should be forced to pass a basic geology course first.
This is way to simple for the warmist geniuses to understand.
Watch the Youtube video of Matt Ridley explaining that increased use of fossil fuels is improving the planet. After all, coal, oil, and nat-gas are just solar energy that was stored tens of millions of years ago and is now available for us to recycle for beneficial use.
How could any eco-greenie rationally oppose? [opps – self-answering]
Just a little something I found at http://geologist-1011.mobi/
A site about an Australian Geologist, Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.) has his head very much in the real world, if he will forgive me I’ll quote a paragraph from his ‘About Me – Introduction’ entry because I think it is so pertinent to how this scam ever started.
“As a Scientist…
I am not particularly partial to any ideas that are not directly supported by material evidence. History has taught us that scientists have never been clairvoiyant and those venturing beyond the implicit limitations of material evidence are rarely, if ever, correct in their speculations. The theory of luminiferous aether presents us with an object lesson. With early Renaissance proponents, such as Rene Descartes, and later formalisation by Robert Hooke, luminiferous aether gained enormous support in spite of the early experiments that called the theory into question (Whittaker, 1910). Even when totally refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, many career scientists remained in denial, in spite of the emerging quantum theory. Svante Arrhenius was one such scientist, and refining Tyndall’s idea of aethereal heat transfer (Tyndall, 1861, p. 285) with a backradiation warming mechanism, Arrhenius (1896, p.255) devised the “Greenhouse Effect”. Like many career scientists, even two decades after the Michelson-Morley experiment demolished the idea of aether, Arrhenius (1906, p. 154, 225) continued to glibly propagate the idea, as if it had never been challenged. Investigation of the science, or lack thereof, behind the “Greenhouse Effect” exposes it as another career proposition just like luminiferous aether, with yet another refutation (Wood, 1909) that is studiously ignored. The lesson we learn from the history of science is that scientific-sounding speculations have little, if anything, to do with science. This is why I allow neither my career nor my ambitions to encroach on any scientific research in which I am engaged. Moreover, my approach to science ensures that, from me, you will always get a straight answer about what has been found, instead of arm-waving about what may or may not be found.”
The rest of his site is well worth a visit if just to see how good science can be written.
If only mouthy twerps like D. Appell could learn this lesson.
I’ve read Casey for years, and he makes good sense, but then he is a geologist and not a grantologist. 😉
Wish I’d found him earlier. Clear, simple writing like that is so refreshing.