We Love CO2

[ious]

Abel Danger, Hawks CAFE and Reform BC are launching a movement against global eco-fascism by inviting children, public servants and citizens to print up locally produced baseball hats, T-shirts and bumper stickers with the logos below or their equivalent in the language of choice to confirm that ..



We hope to have at least 1,000,000 proud wearers of hats and shirts with the logo by March 31, 2008 and at least 10,000,000 before the U.S. Presidential elections in November 2008.

http://www.usdoj.gr/co2/

.

[Reflecter]

Interesting logo's. What's the back up science to offer to people when confronted with such a design? I checked out the site but didn't see anything that can be easily referenced.

Does it depend on an inner knowledge of Canadian air defense, the Clitons land deals and french insurance bankers ties to teachers pensions and a guy found hiding in a pit in Iraq by anychance?

Just kidding Hawks, it's just I have yet to see anyone tackle or properly endorse your theories on 9/11, let alone global warming, so I'd appreciate your presence here if you are involved, prior to donning/endorsing your t-shirts or bumper stickers.

[paul wright]

Hmmm, yes, global warming is good without a doubt. Increased sun activity equals increased vibrational activity between you and me. The increased CO2 follows by some 400 years I believe so if we have it now it's from some historical event
No doubt if it was left alone by the weather manipulators it would serve to make our deserts lush forests
Still, they cant leave the vibe alone, can they?

[SHERITON HOTEL]

The planet was heading for disaster,thrived for 3 billion years on luck...until the anthropogenic industrial revolution came along with it's CO2 bi-product exponentially growing factor...FACT!

[David Hawkins]

CO2 is a wholly beneficial transparent, odorless fertilizer gas; the principal driver of biomass diversity and productivity.

Anthropogenic CO2 occupies about 0.0019% of the earth's atmoshphere and is not and never will be a significant driver of climate change.

CO2 does not accelerate global warming, it delays global cooling.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Have you factored in anthropogenic destruction of natural CO2 sink and the release of greenhouse gas water vapour when fossil fuels are burned and the knock on drought/flood cycle when the water cycle is disrupted by forest clearance? Jeremy Clarkson is not a Guru for me.It's a universal constant that you cannot get something for nothing and you pay for your pleasure, I'd be cautious before you make the biosphere that we pass on to our children even more of a CO2 dustbin, maybe when you go too far your CO2 will suffocate all your fires?

[xmasdale]

The trouble with this thread is that those who want to demolish the current received scientific wisdom that man-made CO2 is causing global warming do not provide any references to back their bald statements as to what they think is going on.

My own slight research into the issue has uncovered that we are currently in a phase of increased activity of sunspots and solar flares and that such sun activity appears historically to have coincided with warm climate periods; whereas low levels of sunspot activity have coincided with cold periods.



In 1989-90 I organised a visit to Britian of a US climatologist, Alden Bryant, who reckoned that:

a) increased CO2 would create global cooling
b) a lot of bad science was being used to justify the warming prediction
c) the petroleum companies, through their funding of various bits of research, were supporting the global warming theory.



I discovered that this whole field is full of climatologists who hate each other, each pushing their pet theories and accusing each other of having sold out to interest groups. There seemed to be a funamental difference of opinion over, given the fact that that increased CO2 is likely to increase cloud cover, whether increased cloud cover would reflect more energy away from the earth (the albedo effect = global cooling) or whether it would trap the earth's heat within the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect = global warming).

Through the various people I met while taking Alden Bryant around, it seemed to me that there was a kind of consensus among those who did not appear to have an axe to grind that the most likely scenario was: global cooling in high latitudes, warming and desertification in low latitudes and resultant turbulence (storms, hurricaines etc) in mid latitudes. But they all seemed to agree that increased CO2 levels were a bad thing for climate stability and that measures to reduce CO2 were urgently needed: tree planting, soil mineralisation, reduction of carbon emissions and switching to alternative non-combustion sources of energy.

I can't however argue convincingly for one scenario or another because I simply don't have enough evidence nor any conviction about what is going on with the climate. Without evidence or convincement I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of saying that man-made global warming theory is a scam.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Good post Xmasdale, don't you think we should employ the precautionary principle with regard to human CO2 waste then?

[David Hawkins]

The precautionary principle in respect of the alleged CO2-climate change scam is better applied in fields of forensic economics and white collar crime.

If a claim sounds too good to be true it is too good to be true.

"If taxpayers pay private equity groups such as Carlyle Canada, Chicago Climate Exchange or Al Gore's Generation Investment $50, for a ton of carbon credit, they are then protected against extreme weather events"

Poor Carlton Bartels, founder of CO2e.com and 652 of his colleagues in the top of the North Tower on 9/11, refused to pay hard-cap protection money to investors in KPMG's abusive tax shelters so they got whacked.

See Pattern of the Times here http://www.usdoj.gr/

That's what most people in Al Capone's day called protection money, it prevented your business from being firebombed.


Hawk

[SHERITON HOTEL]

...so this is all great news for unfettered capitalism taking from 'the natural world/dirty great commodity to be turned into a luverly pile of cash' till it can take no more!!! What a crock!

[ious]

The Great Global Warming Swindle
This video sheds some light on the mentality of global warming proponents and the science that debunks the theory.
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w
Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0hGxq5g0U
Part4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfsX_nHn_hM
Part5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwXt2iNiKg
Part6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI
Part7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6CG7ermeHQ
Part8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZC4hD9MRc


IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 214&Itemid=1

Climate change, its causes and its consequences, its myths and the truth, will be explored in detail by leading world scientists at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, to be held in New York City, March 2-4.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
Sponsored by The Heartland Institute

March 2 - March 4, 2008
Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel
1535 Broadway
New York City, NY U.S.A.

James M. Taylor
Conference Coordinator
Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News


The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.

Global Warming: Crisis or Scam?

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

Conference Goals

The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:

* to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;

* to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;

* to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and

* to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.


Attendance

Attendance is limited to 500 people. Registration will be closed when that total is reached. Approximately 100 scientists, economists, and policy experts will participate as speakers and panelists. Admission is open to the public, but the following people are specifically urged to attend:

* scientists, economists, and policy experts whose work has focused on some dimension of climate change, particularly challenging popular misconceptions about the causes, extent, and consequences of the modern warming

* elected officials from all countries and at all levels of government who are grappling with legislative proposals being put forward in the name of “stopping global warming”

* civic and business leaders, including the leaders of Chambers of Commerce, manufacturers associations, trade associations, foundations, and charities that have a voice or seek a voice in the current debate over climate change policies

* publishers, editors, journalists, and free-lance writers who set editorial policy or write regularly on the debate over climate change science, economics, or politics.


Discounts for registration are available for journalists and students to encourage their attendance. Free admission and travel and hotel scholarships are available to elected officials, scientists, economists, and policy experts who are recommended by sponsors and track chairmen.

Please direct inquiries to James M. Taylor at taylor@heartland.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Elected officials interested in attending should contact Trevor Martin, director of government relations for The Heartland Institute, at tmartin@heartland.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

After the Conference

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.

The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:

* an event in London in 2009;

* launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;

* launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;

* support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

* expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.


Other sections of this Web site provide information about the conference’s background, program, registration, and sponsorship opportunities. The primary contact: is James M. Taylor, senior fellow of The Heartland Institute, taylor@heartland.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

[karlos]

http://www.cantorco2e.com/
So the founder of this business died on 911.
That is interesting because it will become a huge moneyspinner over the next few decades.

I have seen videos of cars driven on everything from compressed air, water (hydrogen generators), battery power, ethanol, bio diesel, etc.
Yet no governement department drives or procures any 'clean' vehicles whatsoever. Aviation fuel is tax free and now airplanes are being built with beds and jacuzzis on board. New runways and terminals are popping up all over the world.
This to me demonstrates in real terms what a complete scam this global warming tax collecting scandal really is. Another way to squeeze the population while the rulers carry on laughing at us thinking up new scams.

CO2 is good it makes plants grow better than any fertiliser and can solve the worlds food shortages.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

So the human animal could in theory tarmac over all the earths' vegetation kill all the plankton on the sea pump as much CO2 as it likes and have no measurable effect on the earth's climate? I don't know but I suspect nature tries to cover the earth with green biomass and plankton the seas for a purpose.

[David Hawkins]

The human animal won't tarmac over the earth's surface because the human animal eats plants or eats animals that eat plants which provide the building blocks of life including the engine of thought between our ears so that we can recognize and reject strawman arguments such as the dangers of tarmacking over the earth.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

The active words in my post were 'in theory' did your grey matter miss them ? blind spot? Non organic human arable farming has a massive carbon footprint with it's uses of arificial fertiliser and pesticides and the use of heavy fossil fuel burning machinery, these all have knock on effects on bio-diversity and the impacts of all this on the carbon cycle must be well into the 'debit column' of mother earths' nutrient cycling 'leger' added to this you have over grazing on forest cleared lands resulting in probably the biggest environmental problem , soil erosion at unprecedented rates in the earths' history.

Having said all that, I am not a fundamentalist zealot preaching from a position of absolute certainty but I get the impresion you are, am I reading that right?

[karlos]

Carbon has never been the problem.
We are all made up from a good percentage of carbon as is every plant and every living creature.
So more carbon in circulation means more vegetation.

Methane is far more dangerous and yet never mentioned.
Since we stopped incinerating our refuse and generating FREE electricity and instead piling all the refuse into landfills and creating toxic methane.
If methane builds up in the atmosphere it can kill us and may even ignite in certain concentrations.

Besides some data shows that the earth is COOLING
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature%2BMonitors%2BReport%2BWorldwide%2 BGlobal%2BCooling/article10866.htm

[scienceplease]

[uselesseater]

[scienceplease]

[Mr-Bridger]

Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?
By David Evans
Posted on 12/11/2007
[Subscribe or Tell Others]
<< Previous Story | Index | Next Story >>

The natural science of climatology and the social science of economics find themselves bound up with each other in the debate on global warming.

There are many economic issues to discuss concerning the government's ability to control the future of weather patterns through regulation and the like.

But so far, the debate has focused on the natural-science question of whether global warming is actually occurring, and, if so, what its cause is. Here is where the popular understanding is very much in need of correction.

A paper I wrote, "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train," briefly describes the history of why we used to believe that carbon emissions caused global warming, and how we got to where we are now in the debate.

Ice Core Data Reverses — 2003

First crucial point, 2003: We've all seen Al Gore's movie. It was the early, low resolution ice core data first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice core data (results from 1985–2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was assumed (bad assumption #1) that CO2 levels controlled the world's temperature.

After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedaling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.

Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007

Second crucial point, August 2007: There are several possible causes of global warming, and they each warm the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or "signature." The greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:

Theoretical Greenhouse Signature (UN climate models)

As of August 2007, we've measured where the warming is occurring in a fair bit of detail, using satellites and balloons. The observed signature is nothing like the greenhouse signature. The distinct greenhouse signature is entirely missing:

Observed Warming (Hadley Centre radiosonde observations 2006, confirmed by more measurements published in 2007)

There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.

Of course these observations need to be repeated by other researchers before we can be completely sure, but they are made by top-notch researchers and reported in top-of-the-line, peer-reviewed journals; so at this stage they look solid. This article from August 2007 is a hard read, but the results are new, it is the most accessible on the web so far, and is much easier to understand than the raw scientific papers:

"Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming?"PDF

Where the IPCC Models Went Wrong — 2007

So why did we go wrong? Another set of recent observations show why the UN climate models got it wrong.

Doubling atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm up to 560ppm (which is roughly where the IPCC says we will be in 2100) is calculated to raise the world's air temperature by 1.2C in the absence of feedbacks such as convection and clouds. This is what you would get if the air was in a flask in a laboratory. Everyone roughly agrees with that calculated result.

But the modelers assumed (bad assumption #2) that increased warming would cause more rainfall, which would cause more clouds high up in the atmosphere — and since high clouds have a net warming effect, this would cause more warming and thus more rainfall and so on. It is this positive feedback that causes the UN climate models to predict a temperature rise due to a rise in CO2 to 560ppm to be 2.5C - 4.7C (of which we have already experienced 0.7C).

But in September 2007, Spencer, who spent a few years observing the temperatures, clouds, and rainfall, reported that warming is actually associated with fewer high clouds. So the observed feedback is actually negative, so we won't even get the full 1.2C of greenhouse warming even if carbon levels double!

As Spencer says with such understatement,

Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall. Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise….

Science is about observational evidence trumping theoretical calculations, which is exactly what is happening here:

"Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds" (8/9/2007)

Warming Already Waning

The only temperature data we can trust are satellite measurements, and they only go back to 1979. They show no warming in the southern hemisphere, and the warming trend in the northern hemisphere appears to have waned since 2001:

Global Satellite temperatures (1979 – late 2007)

(Gratuitous advice for those whose jobs depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming: Find another job to pay your mortgage and feed your kids!)
$15

Three Stages of Knowledge and the IPCC

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

1985–2003

Old ice core data led us to strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2003–2007

New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
From Aug 2007

Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!

[scienceplease]

[uselesseater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YJRYRhX5e4&feature=related

This is a very good debate, definately worth a watch.

[Mr-Bridger]

Heres a few more links to look at :

http://mises.org/story/2571 I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train

http://www.mises.org/story/2795 Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming?

http://thenewamerican.com/node/6973 The Recovery from the Little Ice Age and Global Warming

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html A cold spell soon to replace global warming

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/121107_global_warmin g.htm
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html The Global Warming Scam




Al Gores Film Unfit for UK Schools:


Link



Global Warming Hoax



Link

[uselesseater]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

[uselesseater]

[QuitTheirClogs]

I’ve not been following the global warming debate, and I don’t think I could be bothered starting now, but I came across Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) at the HSE website.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/index.htm

Is it true that oil companies are going to get paid (by us presumably) to dispose of CO2?


Questions and Answers on the proposal for a directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide

The biggest CO2 storage projects that European companies are involved in are the Sleipner[1] project in the North Sea (Statoil) and the In Salah[2] project in Algeria (Statoil, BP and Sonatrach). Both projects involve stripping CO2 from natural gas – a process which is already carried out before the gas can be sold – and storing it in underground geological formations. The Sleipner project was spurred on by the Norwegian tax on carbon dioxide which was significantly higher than the cost per tonne of CO2 stored in the Sleipner geological formation. The In Salah project was triggered by BP's internal carbon trading system. Other demonstration projects underway are the Vattenfall project at Schwartze Pumpe[3] in Germany which is due to be operational by mid-2008 and the Total CCS project in the Lacq basin in France. The European Technology Platform on Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant (ETP-ZEP), a stakeholder initiative supported by the Commission, has identified some 15 full-scale demonstration projects that could go ahead once the necessary economic framework is in place.

europa

[TonyGosling]

There seems to be a sort of anti-carbon cult developing which very few adherants really understand.
Trust me I'm a scientist.
Meanwhile it deflects the blame from the oil companies/cartels who are responsible for the pollution equals profits idiocy.

Still this campaign is saying pollution is cool
which is stupid

[QuitTheirClogs]

Globalist fat cats call for "an extra $45 trillion" and "strong" government to tackle global warming.

Bloomberg -- 20 June 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSGm18AJaMkk

[QuitTheirClogs]

Dispatches - The Great Green Smokescreen

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEt64dpX2Hk

2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUszJrIWMkY

3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVfJWjsKcuo

4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlV51LAi1CE

5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ORZ5tFRyM


This has got to be the greatest scam since: Indulgence