Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The War on AGW Denial, Part 1

Holocaust denial is illegal in civilised countries of the world.

So why shouldn't we render the orchestrated efforts of the well-funded global warming denial industry to nought, by making anthropogenic global warming denial illegal (unless it's genuine scientific research published in peer-review journals)?

Advertisers are not allowed to make false and misleading claims about their products. Isn't it time we subjected fossil-fuel funded think-tanks and 'foundations' to the same scrutiny as advertisers?

Until political will makes it happen, we need to destroy the vast army of denialist zombies they have spawned, ourselves. Persuade the dumb-relays of thinktank-crafted propaganda to be part of the solution, by driving a PeakEngineered stake through the hearts of their malformed, miscreant arguments. Choose your stakes below:

(First 5 of 10)
clipped from peakoildesign.com

This is my collection of rebuttals for the most prominent arguments put forth by the folks who deny anthropogenic climate change.

1. Mars is undergoing global warming, therefore humans can not be causing it on Earth.

No. Mars is not undergoing global warming.

2. Volcanoes release much more carbon dioxide than humans.

No. Volcanic activity is 0.02 to 0.05 Giga-tons/year.

3. The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.
During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2.
Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year.
4. The sea level has not changed.
Since 1900, sea level has risen by about 35 cm (13.8 inches). This change in sea level is accelerating.

5. Scientists predicted imminent global cooling in the 1970s.

No, they did not.


Sebastian said...

hey come to my blog at http://newspoliticsandmore.blogspot.com/ by the way nice blog

Rob said...

Your information is inaccurate.

If I were to find your suggestions of outlawing free speech and jailing global warming doubters anything less than frightening I'd probably make leave a better comment.

Steven Craig said...

The coldest part of Global Warming - Modern Science

A couple of days ago the founding father of Climatology Reid Bryson, called the Global Warming "Hooey" because the CO2 science is not making sense, Here are his words:

"There is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide."

About two weeks ago the head of NASA expressed doubts that Global Warming is a significant problem. His statement was based on the thirty or so years that NASA has been monitoring the temperatures in earth’s upper atmosphere, which have shown little or no change. Although he did point out that the surface temperatures have shown a steady increase.

I will also note that last week he announced that he regretted his statement, but he did not retract it.

The point is if the head of NASA, likely the world’s most important research organization is uncertain, then modern science is obviously confused, which maybe costing all of us time we don’t have to burn.

On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, a NASA press release of composite images taken of earth’s polar ice caps from 1979-2003 showed that they have melted about 50% over two decades, and the effect appears to be accelerating.

Scientific confusion invites those radio talk ‘Know It All, Guys’ to claim Global Warming is just another “normal” climatic phase. The thing NASA should be pointing out is that no normal climatic shift could ever melt half of earth’s ice in 20 years. This is extremely abnormal.

A meltdown this rapid would be the result of a climatic disaster, such as a massive volcano, a jumbo jet sized meteor or maybe something like the removal of earth’s thick thermal insulation which also according to NASA, covered over 80% more of earth’s land surface, 200 years ago, then today.

Not only can children prove at least 8 very powerful cooling effects that earth has just lost, but vegetation eats the CO2 that many theory scientists are solely blaming for global warming.

The carbon taken directly from CO2 is one of the two main ingredients plants use to make their food. According to ed.weinipeg.com, the web’s interactive encyclopedia, the average tree removes 26 pounds of CO2 from the air every year, and earth just lost billions and billions of these CO2 eaters.

I’m not saying the burning of organic compounds is not a big problem, but today’s levels of CO2 could still be mathematically balanced with enough new atmospheric photosynthesis occurring, which may still need to be 36% more then was occurring 200 years ago.

There may be a few ways to actually get that much vegetation growing long before we could ever launch a space umbrella. And unlike the umbrella these methods would make a lot of money for a lot of companies and pay a lot of workers, they could also produce millions of tons of food and construction materials, create typical vacation paradises and greatly reduce other pollutants from earth’s air, while also cooling it.
They could even help lower earth’s raising sea levels, and replenish endangered species.

Out of the 8 other cooling factors that I could design experiments simple enough for third graders, several lost ones seem to add far more cooling then today’s 36% higher CO2 levels can physically hold of additional heat.

The massive expansion of oxygen gas released from water during atmospheric photosynthesis has not been accounted for in global warming theories, and some people calling themselves scientists even deny it happens. Yet only a few denied that oxygen gas was released from a dense liquid that was already 82% oxygen. (H2O has 2 H atoms for each O but one O is many times heaver then 1 H atom).

I am a manufacture and I work with other engineers that see this as clearly as the things we build. This is because they only use real science, no time to make up theories, and the thermal effects of expansion and contraction are a very large part of many engineer’s daily work lives.

Land plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the other main ingredient of their plant food, hydrogen, to create ‘carbohydrates’. They then convert these into sugars, for use and storage. Our bodies also convert carbohydrates into sugars. Somebody called me an idiot, saying “plants convert carbohydrates into glucose, not sugar”. Save your email, simply speaking they are the same thing.

Plants do not use the oxygen left over after removing the H2, from the H2O, nor do they combine it with another dense compound, nor do they store it, nor do they burn it, they just release it into the atmosphere to provide earth’s animals with fresh new oxygen gas to breath. Any encyclopedia will verify that Photosynthesis is responsible for at least 99% of the oxygen in earth’s atmosphere.

Mathematically this expansion is so massive it would have been canceling out a tremendous amount of heat right above earth’s surface, if we had not have just removed 80% of earth’s thickest vegetation.
This is because ‘Expansion’ is nature’s only one step supper cooling method.

Unlike the similar cooling effect from evaporation (called ‘transpiration’ in plants) the O2 gas will never condense back into a liquid at earth temps, as all of the evaporated water eventually will.
This means that the expansion of O from photosynthesis is 100% efficient at cooling the air near earth’s surface (where the problem is) as water vapors eventually re-compress its heat when it condenses.
The bigger difference is that most of the Atmospheric Photosynthesis is now gone, and the rate of evaporation appears to be up, do to higher temps and more storms, if the Weather Channel is correct.

This roughly 800 time expansion of O from H20 makes brand new atmosphere which contains only enough heat to balance its mass (to surrounding temps ) when compressed 800 times, so this newly released gas instantly draws radiant heat from the hot air, right above earth’s surface, to re-warm it.

I have had many denials that this expansion even occurs, or that expansion even cools, but none were similar or provided any evidence beyond their words. Not one offered a simple way to demonstrate how a dense matter, without being consumed, attached or used, converts to a very sparse state, of the same mass, without expansion, no matter what they call the process.

For matter to go from a very dense state to a very sparse one without expansion, alteration, reattachment or consumption, would mean that science has discovered ‘completely vanishing matter’.

If you want to ask someone else about this, find a clever engineer, or science loving sharp third grader, but don’t ask a science theory writer, this effect is about as basic as effects can be, and they missed it.

Go to earthfitness.blogspot.com and read about many other lost cooling effects that theory science has not accounted for or apparently even noticed. If I can’t back my words with real experiments and or natural examples that are simple enough for children to verify, do not believe me.

I also list over a dozen ways we can start cooling earth back down, right now, not in maybe 30 years if we are lucky enough that the solar winds don’t blow the Space Umbrella out of the solar system.
They are part of the article “Space Umbrella vs. Desert Irrigation” at
Steven Craig

George Bruce said...

Outlaw opposing points of view? Why would that be necessary if facts and logic are on your side? It is a telling comment.

Of course, that would mean that the debate would truly be over. You'd just jail anyone who disagreed. Would you kill them, or just put them in some type of concentration camp?

Let's see if you delete this comment.

PeakEngineer said...

Excellent analogy to false advertising. It is illegal for a car salesman to claim that he has Ferraris for $10,000 when he really has Pintos for $12,000. It is not restricting free speech to require industries to do the same -- commercials claiming "Carbon Dioxide is good for you" or that there is such a thing as "Clean Coal" technology (or ever will be) are, in truth, false advertising.

There is a difference between merely inaccurate information and willful deception in order to gain profit. That is unquestionably the situation we see today with regards to the global warming obfuscation campaigns practiced by the energy industry.

Thanks for the link, BTW!

Wadard said...

George Bruce - it's not about views or opinions - it's about truth, as determined by science. I have no problem if there is a challenge to the established consensus from scientist who publish their research in peer-review journals, and denialist quoted this.

It's the publishing damaging, incorrect, claims in opinion sections of newspapers I object to when the . You can't do it for tobacco, why should you be able to do it co2?

Wadard said...

peakengineer, nice to see you here. thanks for the material.

dan said...

why is nobody address this issue: polar cities?
read my blog and weeeP: climatechange3000.blogspot.com
danny bee | Homepage | 06.22.07 - 11:56 pm | #


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polar cities are proposed sustainable polar retreats designed to house human beings in the future, in the event that global warming causes the central and middle regions of the Earth to become uninhabitable for a long period of time. Although they have not been built yet, some futurists have been giving considerable thought to the concepts involved.

High-population-density cities, to be built near the Arctic Rim with sustainable energy and transportation infrastructure, will require substantial nearby agriculture. Boreal soils are largely poor in key nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, but nitrogen-fixing plants (such as thevarious alders) with the proper symbiotic microbes and mycorrhizal fungi can likely remedy such poverty without the need for petroleum-derived fertilizers. Regional probiotic soil improvement should perhaps rank high on any polar cities priority list. James Lovelock's notion of a widely distributed almanac of science knowledge and post-industrial survival skills also appears to have value.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Cities"
danny bee | Homepage | 06.22.07 - 11:57 pm | #