All you need to know about carbon dioxide

Study the picture below…



This picture represents the volume of earth’s atmosphere. The last square on the lower right represents the volume of all the green house gases in earth’s atmosphere. The yellow section represents all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The red dot shows how much carbon dioxide humans are responsible for.

Since carbon dioxide is a trace gas measured in part per million, it’s hard to notice it on an actual scale. Here is a blowup of the green house gas percentage so you can see how insignificant it is:



Look at that red dot and think about all the lies you have heard about the climate. Increasing carbon dioxide causes global warming - LIE. Increasing carbon dioxide causes more severe weather such as tornados, floods, droughts, and hurricanes - LIE. Increasing temperatures will cause famines and global catastrophe – LIE. Global warming may go down as the greatest hoax that was ever perpetrated on earth. The lies are unraveling so fast around the world that it is hard to keep up with who is involved and what deception they spread. The liars are running away from climate change so fast they are leaving whirlwinds in their paths.

Here is a list of what has come to light in the last couple of months:

-The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis asserted that the British Meteorological Office only used data from 25 percent of meteorological stations; the stations with the warmest data.

-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitored around 5,000 climate stations around the world until 1990. After 1990, NOAA eliminated the data from over 3,000 of these stations, eliminating stations at higher latitudes and altitudes; in other words, the cooler stations.

-IPCC lied about the link between increased natural disasters and global warming (there is no link) using papers that were flawed and not peer reviewed.

-IPCC lied about Himalayan glaciers melting going so far as to admit this year that they thought the false data would encourage policy makers to take action.

-IPCC lied about Amazon Rainforest decline based on flawed and non-peer reviewed papers.

-NASA claimed that 1998 was the warmest year on record, then changed it to 1934 after facing scrutiny over their data. They then made the claim that 1998 and 2006 were the warmest years on record. So far, NASA has refused all Freedom of Information requests to see the data.

-Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the main source of data for the IPCC reports and the primary source of climate hysteria, admitted last week that there has been no climate warming for the last 15 years.

-Phil Jones and the staff at CRU claim that they have lost or been careless with the data that they used for the IPCC reports; preventing other scientists from validating their work.

-Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Michael Mann, all leading instigators in the global warming hoax, were revealed to be destroying and hiding data to cover their lies when the Climate Gate Emails came to light.

The bottom line is that anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific process and statistics could have looked at the two pictures above and understood immediately that global warming could not be caused by emissions from cars and factories. The general public bought into the ideas of man-caused climate change hook, line, and sinker. Now, billions of dollars have been thrown away on the fear of climate change and kids are being taught the same lies as part of their education.

Even as the walls of climate change hype are falling down all around them, the EPA is continuing its foolish stance on regulating carbon dioxide, and senators are still moving forward with the cap and trade tax. The president maintains that the science of man-made climate change is sound; even though the data is suspect, the process has been shown to be flawed, and a conspiracy to manipulate the science has been revealed. The president, the EPA, and everyone who wants to believe in man-made climate change are the real deniers now.

Global Warming Data Faked

The latest debacle by “scientists” to create a data scenario showing unusual warming in our century has been exposed for fraud. The mainstream media is not very vocal about this, so I will briefly describe what has happened.

It turns out that the data used by the IPCC to show global warming was purposely skewed to make it look like this century was the warmest ever recorded. The first heads up that this data was suspect occurred when scientists refused to release the data for other scientists to replicate their findings.

Newsflash for anyone who has not taken the time to research ice core data, tree ring proxies, and written history of the planet: now is not the warmest period civilization has experienced. Below is the generally accepted history of earth’s temperature.

Mann et. al. challenged this perspective with their thoroughly discredited “hockey stick graph.” However, the IPCC decided to run with this data anyway for obvious reasons:

It was revealed that Mann et. al. had written an algorithm to create this graph, which means that Mann just used the data that supported his theory, and ignored the rest. Another method had to be found to keep the faith, I mean global warming, alive. Keith Briffa, a climatologist, saved the day for global warmongers with his temperature reconstruction using tree ring data. Briffa’s graph was also challenged, and he too refused to allow anyone to see the data and replicate his work.

Briffa’s tree ring temperature reconstruction:

To make a long story short, the data finally got out. It was discovered that Briffa had used the data from 12 trees out of a 240 tree data set to create the warming trend shown in the above chart. When the complete set of data is charted out, you get this:

That’s right, no warming for this century; the trees have spoken.

The IPCC is trying to cram anthropomorphic (man-made) global warming down our throats. Our own congress is seriously considering raising our taxes, decimating what is left of our industry, throwing away hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of jobs, and tripling your electric bills because of the academic misconduct of individuals like Mann and Briffa.

America, you need to wake up. Do your homework; just read online and learn about our climate. You will quickly notice that anyone who claims that the debate is over regarding carbon dioxide and climate change is a fool. Or worse. Stop being lied to and stop being afraid. Start holding people accountable for their lies and deceit. Start with congress.

What is green?

The fragile earth crowd never ceases to humor me with their outlandish and worthless ideas for saving the planet. Most of these people live by the mantra “If it makes you feel good, it is good.” And they often make judgments about nature the same way: “If it makes you feel bad in your heart, then it is bad for the environment. Science and reality are rarely referenced. For those of you who know a little about Myers-Briggs, you can already tell that I am not one of those “touchy feely” personality types.

I thought it would be interesting to look at what kind of judgments people make when they try to look smart by using only their feelings. There are consequences when you unhinge your mind from your emotions!

Without getting too detailed, there are building standards that determine how “green” a building can be. For the most part, if you buy all your materials locally, no matter what they are, the building will be certified as green. For some reason, these standards automatically give a green light to bamboo. Environnmentalists love bamboo plantations. They are environmentally responsible forest management, rapidly renewable (ready for harvest in 5 to 10 years), and a source of income for struggling Asian farmers.

Contrast that with the hideous "biological desert" known as a pine plantation (below) that environmentalists loathe. Pine plantations are supposedly killing wildlife, songbirds, and the planet. Maybe we should change them to bamboo for wildlife and the environment?

Somehow, in the green battles raging in newspapers and magazines (made with paper, from wood) wood has become non-green as a building product. Mainly driven by the public’s irrational fear of clear cuts in planted forests. Believe it or not, there are still people today who think that a tree never grows back after it has been cut. The same people often claim to believe in evolution, yet somehow that process ceases whenever a tree is cut with a chainsaw. Here is a picture of clearcut. Does it make you feel bad?

Here is a plantation ten to fifteen years later. Are you feeling better yet?

But here is where environmentalists get weird, err, if that makes any sense. They claim that steel and aluminum are better for the environment than using wood from trees. You have to have coal to process iron ore. Below is a picture of an iron ore mine and a coal mining operation. Yeah, I can see why environmentalists would rather have that than the pine plantation (sarcasm). Aluminum looks much the same, except that it takes huge amounts of electricity to process aluminum ore, or recycle aluminum, so you are still going to need that coal mine.

Not that I have any issues with coal or steel. I am rather fond of automobiles and electricity. Next time, we’ll talk about how cow farts are killing the planet, but deer, turkey, skunk, wolf, and bear flatulence smell like wildflowers.

Climate Change (yawn)

This is the first of several articles on climate change. What most people take for granted as common knowledge is probably incorrect. If you learned about global warming in a public school, you need to re-study the facts, without any political influence. I am amazed at how far the hype has gone when the data has never changed. I’ll give away the ending now: what passes for science these days falls well short of the scientific method.

There are huge holes that have yet to be explained by those who claim that man impacts the carbon cycle, or if carbon actually matters in the context of earth’s warming and cooling. There is no consensus, and since when does that even matter in science? At one time, there was consensus that the earth was flat. There was even consensus that the sun rotated around the earth!

This article will look at how scientists determined what happened in the past with earth’s temperature. Any theories HAVE to explain the past, and this is where most anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theories fail.

The Ice Age

One of the first questions that needs to be answered is, “How do scientists explain the warming that melted the sheet of ice during the ice age?” Scientists say a natural process created the ice, and then a natural process melted it. The earth cooled dramatically and then warmed up, without any influence by man. This process continues today, yet no one can tell you how much of a factor man contributes to this process.

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the causes of ice ages, or the causes of climate change using today’s spin:

“The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.”

Read that paragraph again and consider the complexity of the theories involved in estimating how each one affects earth’s atmosphere and temperature. Which one impacts temperature the most? Can’t answer that? Neither can scientists, yet they expect us to believe that they can estimate man’s impact in 50 years to the nearest centigrade?

Earth’s Status Quo

How do we know change is taking place or what the status quo is? We need to establish a baseline and scientists have put together temperature models based on proxy data. Proxy data means that scientists use theories regarding data to create other data. In this case, the earth’s temperature record is recreated from sources such as ice cores, ocean and lake bottom sediments, glacial deposits and features, sedimentary rock analysis, and tree ring data. Here is a chart that uses proxy data from the surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea to model earth’s temperature:

From “A Global Warming Primer” National Center for Policy Analysis

We already know the temperature was much warmer during Medieval times than today. If you see temperature data that shows today warmer than the medieval period, you should be suspect of where that data came from. More than likely, it came from the thoroughly discredited “hockey stick graph.”

Hockey stick chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg)

The “hockey stick graph” was created by using an algorithm that searched for “hockey stick shaped” data. The scientists who created it refused initially to release the data so that other scientists could replicate their results. Theories must be replicable, or they are quickly invalidated. Once the scientific community finally shamed them into showing their data, the jig was up. But many people unscrupulously continue to throw the hockey stick graph in your face as “science.”

This figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.

The summary from Wikipedia for this chart:

"The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on measurements on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005)."

What is important is the cycle. The earth's temperature cycles back and forth through ice ages. It would be good to know for certain that carbon dioxide indeed warmed the earth because then we could pump out vast quantities to stave off the next ice age, which is apparently coming due.

Next: Carbon Dioxide

The earth’s temperature record has been reconstructed from various sources around the world. Bearing in mind that these are still based on theories, they are producing similar results; mainly, that the earth’s temperature cycles through dramatic highs and lows naturally. So why is there so much excitement over a process that has been going on for thousands of years? Because many scientists, although hardly a consensus, have decided that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have warmed the earth by putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But is this really true? And how much does man contribute? Is there a causal relationship between carbon dioxide and earth’s temperature?

Scientists are still debating the answer to these questions, and there is yet to be a consensus. On the next Climate Change post, we’ll look at the carbon dioxide data. And no, Al Gore does not count as a scientist, but he could probably fill quite a few onion sacks.