Demolishing the link
between CO2 and climate
............................................................................................................................................................................
- A meteorologist and an analytical chemist teamed up explore the claims that CO2 levels drive climate. (They also mention the role of underwater volcanoes, a drum that I have been beating for more than 20 years.)
In their newly published paper, ‘Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change‘, meteorologist Dr Martin Hertzberg and analytical chemist Hans Schreuder cite a plethora of data concerning what is known – and currently accepted – about the role of carbon dioxide in climate change (global warming).
The data examined includes:
(a) Vostok (Antarctica) ice-core measurements;
(b) rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere;
(c) temperature changes that precede CO2 changes;
(d) global temperature trends;
(e) satellite data;
(f) effect of solar activity.
The two highly qualified scientists found that
- :“Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2.”
more
How long before it get accepted by mainstream?
Or I as say, why do I care what the ants think?
I just watched the movie The Day After Tomorrow. It's funny that, in that movie, global warming triggers another ice age. It seems that the movie was designed for people to hedge their bets against global warming.
Although I'm personally skeptical about the extent of human caused global warming, I don't deny that CO2 has some effect. That said, CO2 has been treated way to harshly, in my opinion. The political atmosphere has almost eliminated real conversations about climate change.
People don't seem to want to consider the possibility we might be better off if the earth is slightly warmer. Also, even if we decide things should be cooler, controlling CO2 isn't our only option available. We know that people have altered the albedo of the earth by creating cities and cutting down trees. This has way more effect on earths temperature than CO2. So we could control that by planting trees, not building so many damned roads, and maybe even creating artificial clouds.
(ahem)
The ice caps are melting. whether or not it has to do with human activity, or if we can do anything to change this remains to be seen. The Northwest passage as been open before in human history, that's why the peoples of Alaska, Greenland, Norway and the upper parts of Siberia all register as one "race" in DNA studies and through language. They didn't walk hundreds of miles across frozen waste land, they paddled, sail or drifted about. We find human artifacts in valleys that we thought had always been under ice. The world has been warmer, and it's been colder to. The important thing to keep in mind is that fossil fuels are a finite resource, very dirty to extract and refine, and use. Also, if we can stop lining the pockets of the twisted principalities and mind controlling Kalifs of the oil producing nations, maybe we can finally see them develop more ration forms of government that will end all this hatred they have for the West (us).
true..but your time scale is off.
by about a quarter million years..
just recently they've found archeological evidence that indicates that humans have been in the americans for over 100k years...no need to walk over frozen waists?
oh..by the way.
government is NOT rational..
it's nukin futz...history is my evidence.
I have not really seen conclusive evidence to made up my mind on climate change.
There is a lot of disinformation out there, so I don't know what is true here.
For example how is it possible to determine the temperature 5000 years ago? You can't even determine the temperature for tomorrow weather. The error margin grows exponentially per unit.
But let's say climate change is fake. Who benefits from it?
who benifits from the "carbon credits' market?
The oil guys. But then they also legitimize the green energy markets, which is a direct enemy of them. So that makes no sense. Why the hell you legitimize your enemy, which then leftist countries will eventually use. (Germany windplants, solar panels, electric bus system, etc.. And even the EU is starting to push for it on continental level)
They will lose a lot of market share, I guess that is why oil prices were plunging recenty.
However pollution is actually real, and of course it's dishonest to conflate pollution with climate change, which they do often. But lung cancer due to pollution is very real, and a lot of it is due to the oil and carbon.
So there is at least that truth in it. If climate change is false, then you dont need to invent a fantasy story to just emphasize on lung diseases. However it could be a disinfo to discredit those that point out that the air is getting toxic, which it is.
However if climate change is true, there there is a lot more at stake here than just a few companies.
"the oil guys'...knee jerk reaction...much?
the 'oil guys'...have got nothing to do with it..
ft.com/lexicon
Lexicon
Definition of carbon market
A market that is created from the trading of carbon emission allowances to encourage or help countries and companies to limit their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is also known as emissions or carbon trading.
Carbon emissions trading is a way of reducing greenhouse gases produced by polluters. E.g., in the EU, it operates on a cap and trade system where a limit (cap) is set on C02 emissions and permits are given to emitters to release a certain amount of CO2. If a company exceeds its allowance, it has to purchase additional permits to cover the excess. If a company does not exceed its limit, then it can sell their unused allowances. [1]
Please note that this system does not take account of the wider market in carbon under the Kyoto protocol, which operates differently. [2]
created by whom?
But they gain monopoly through this. We already know about the "regulatory capture" phenomena. And how big businesses eliminate competition through regulation.
There is a term for it: Crony Capitalism.
So in this situation, the oil guys would benefit from it, if you regulate out the other competition. Like blocking Russian oil (which the USA is already in conflict with), it could be a political move.
But I don't know, since then you legitimize the green energy, which they have no interest doing, neither the US nor Russia.
If there is truth in it, then why don't they just tell it. If it's not then why do they invent such elaborate hoax (with many plot holes) to further their agenda?
well...I've worked in the oil industry...my brother was a petroleum engineer and my other brother was a geophysicist...reckon they have any idea what they are talking about...
or is it a SEEECRET 'oil guy' plot?
I used to invest into oil until 2008. After that just nothing made sense anymore. There was just too much deception, and that is not profitable. The geo-politics, which is the main indicator of oil was just totally confusing to me. So I didn't even cared to do it afterwards. The profits weren't even that great and the difficulty was too high. It's like trading the EUR/USD, good luck figuring out what the hell is going on there behind the scenes.