Advertisements

OH Noes! Increased Carbon Dioxide Making More Flowers In Tropical Forests

“PLANTS convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into energy in the form of sugars, which they can use to fuel any number of vital life processes. As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plants have an opportunity to produce a bounty of new energy.”

SHOCK HORROR!! Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and warmth are what eco-systems require to flourish 😱

Watts Up With That?

From FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the “but wait, all climate change must be bad!” department.

Climate change linked to more flowery forests, FSU study shows

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New research from a Florida State University scientist has revealed a surprising relationship between surging atmospheric carbon dioxide and flower blooms in a remote tropical forest.

FSU researchers studying the rich tropical forests of Panama’s Barro Colorado Island found that climbing rates of carbon dioxide have set the stage for a multidecade increase in overall flower production.

The findings were outlined in a paper published in the journal Global Change Biology

“It’s really remarkable,” said Assistant Professor of Geography Stephanie Pau, who led the study. “Over the past several decades, we’ve seen temperatures warming and carbon dioxide increasing, and our study found that this tropical forest has responded to that increase by producing more flowers.”

Pau’s findings suggest that tropical forests, which…

View original post 680 more words

Advertisements

THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game

shutterstock_556760875

“Carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.” FOSC

***

AN excellent ‘re-education’ piece by Robert Lyman via Friends Of Science Calgary on the politically demonised gas of life – CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

OUR children are being scandalously indoctrinated in the class-room to believe that colourless, odourless, tasteless trace-gas and plant food CO2 is a “pollutant”.

THE Obama administration via his extremist EPA even declared, by law, CO2 (your own breath) a “pollutant”!

The EPA on April 17 [2009] proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.

EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant

From FOSC :

YOUNG adults in Canada today have grown up during a period when educational standards are significantly different from those of previous generations, and “environmental awareness”, was often included as a formal or informal part of the curriculum. Yet, misconceptions abound. I was reminded of this the other day when a young woman I met expressed concern about how carbon dioxide was harming air quality and people’s health. Even the government, after all, calls carbon dioxide “pollution”.

 

In the interests of clarity, therefore, I thought I would offer some hard information that people might find good to have.

 

In brief, carbon dioxide does not harm air quality.

Carbon-dioxide-3D-vdW

Visualization of carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas found naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. It is produced by natural sources like volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, people and animals (including fish), decay of organic materials, the combustion (i.e. burning) of fossil fuels, and as a by-product of some industrial processes like baking and brewing. Plants and algae use light to photosynthesize a compound called carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon life; in other words, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on earth.

image-170842-web 4 part soot

Image of various particulate matter. “Soot” (upper left hand image) is actually ‘”carbon” – a physical remnant of incomplete combustion of burning wood or fossil fuels. It is scientifically inaccurate to refer to the gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), as “carbon” as they are different things. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Carbon.html

 

Carbon dioxide is an essential element in human respiration; people breathe out about 40,000ppm (parts per million) CO2 with every breath.

co2 is not a pollutant supreme court justice

The quality of the air we breathe is sometimes impaired by certain contaminants, and it helps to know what these are. The main ones are:

  • Particulate matter: Particulates are tiny drops of liquid and sold particles, the size of dust or smaller, suspended in the air. They come mainly from agriculture, construction and dust from roads, although various industrial sources play a role. Along with ozone, it is a major component of smog and, at high levels, can harm human health. (Often referred to as PM2.5 or PM10 – meaning Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 or 10 microns in size.)
  • Airborne-particulate-size-chart

    Chart showing diverse forms of airborne particulate matter according to size range.

    Nitrogen oxide: Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown toxic gas with an irritating smell. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause breathing problems and reduced lung function, and it is a component of acid rain.

  • Ground-level ozone: Low-level ozone is a colourless gas that is formed through a chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. The major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are transportation, oil and natural gas production, electricity generation, home heating and even the burning of firewood. At high levels, ground-level ozone can cause breathing problems, lung damage, and asthma attacks in humans and damage to sensitive vegetation.
  • Sulphur dioxide: Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and toxic gas that smells bad. It is caused both by natural sources and by human activity, the most important of which are smelting and refining, electricity generation, heating, and oil and gas production and other industries. Sulphur dioxide in high concentrations can contribute to breathing and heart problems, especially among infants and the elderly.
  • Carbon monoxide: Unlike carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas that is caused by the incomplete burning of oil, natural gas and coal. High levels of carbon monoxide can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, and even death.

 

 

AirPollutantEmissions_Nat_EN envir can 1990 to 2015

Environment Canada chart shows decline in noxious emissions from 1990  https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=En&n=E79F4C12-1

 

So, carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.

Time lapse of plants with different CO2 concentrations:

Read on…

The Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Friends of Science Calgary

•••

Plant Food CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :


9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

carbon-dioxide-leaf_compressed

Bookmark this brilliant explanation of life-giving fossil fuels, ergo CO2, by Climate and Energy reasonalist Alex ALEX EPSTEIN …

Via The Daily Caller :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress
1:17 PM 11/13/2014
.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook
*
Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)

Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.20-PM-620x478.png

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.29-PM-620x477.png

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-3.30.17-PM-620x478.png

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

Read all nine here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/#ixzz4U8uL5Fkr

•••

CO2 (Fossil Fuel) Related :

CO2 = Extreme Weather Related :

CO2 = Sea Level Rise Related :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress

Conventional wisdom is that the more fossil fuels we use, the less livable we make our planet.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook

Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.20 PM

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.29 PM

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 3.30.17 PM

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/2/#ixzz4U8zDhKiI


Is Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant?

co2

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Driving down on Saturday, we stopped off at Crickley Country Park in Gloucestershire.

On the information board there was the usual eco stuff we often see these days. At the top it mentioned (roughly)

Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and is harmful to the environment.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of pollution is;

The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.

Clearly, CO2 is not poisonous, and far from being harmful is absolutely essential for life on Earth as we know it.

At best, the only argument can be that an increase in CO2 levels MAY, on balance, be harmful, but equally a reduction could be even more harmful.

Unfortunately, this sort of sloppy, lazy propaganda is far too common these days.

Crickley Park is owned and run by Gloucestershire County Council. It is sad we cannot count on…

View original post 8 more words


Study: increased carbon dioxide is greening deserts globally

CO2 is greening the planet?!? You mean that evil gas that Obama and the EPA are trying to declare a “pollutant”? And the same colourless, odourless, trace gas that kids at school are being taught to refer to as “carbon pollution”?
Carbon dioxide, greening the planet?! Shock horror.

Watts Up With That?

Enhanced levels of carbon dioxide are likely cause of global dryland greening, study says

From the “inconvenient truth” department and INDIANA UNIVERSITY:

Enhanced levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are a likely key driver of global dryland greening, according to a paper published today in the journal Scientific Reports.

The positive trend in vegetation greenness has been observed through satellite images, but the reasons for it had been unclear.

greening-earth

After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water.

“We know from satellite observations that vegetation is greener than it was in the past,” Wang said. “We now understand why that’s…

View original post 496 more words


Study: Increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased U.S. forest health in recent decades

“Children just aren’t going to know what [CO2] is”.

Especially as they’re taught by their schools, the climate crisis industry, and a disturbing amount of mainstream media that CO2 is “pollution”.

Watts Up With That?

“Physiological and ecological factors influencing recent trends in United States forest health responses to climate change”

forest_for_trees

Highlights

    • We review information on US forest health in response to climate change.• We found that trees are tolerant of rising temperatures and have responded to rising carbon dioxide.• No long-term trends in US drought have been found in the literature.• CO2 tends to inhibit forest pests and pathogens.• Projections of forest response to climate change are highly variable.

by Craig Loehle, Craig Idso, T. Bently Wigley

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.042 (Forest Ecology and Management) (h/t to Poptech)

Abstract: The health of United States forests is of concern for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, forest commercial values, and other reasons. Climate change, rising concentrations of CO2 and some pollutants could plausibly have affected forest health and growth rates over the past 150 years and may affect forests in the future. Multiple factors must be considered when assessing present and future forest…

View original post 248 more words


Greenpeace founder delivers powerful annual lecture, praises carbon dioxide – full text

Superb read.

Watts Up With That?

Patrick-Moore-574x1024Full text of the speech: Dr. Patrick Moore: Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

2015 Annual GWPF Lecture
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

My Lords and Ladies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to set out my views on climate change. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be…

View original post 6,157 more words


Carbon Dioxide and Floods

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

Climate alarmists insist that CO2 is the “climate control knob” that ultimately exacerbates extreme weather events….

Let’s test that hypothesis where “extreme” floods are concerned…

2013 : Carbon Dioxide At 400 Parts Per Million :

Screen Shot 2013-08-26 at , August 26, 10.30.51 AM

China Floods Kill At Least 31 People, 166 Missing – Huffington Post

•••

1931 : Carbon Dioxide At 310 Parts Per Million :
ScreenHunter_400 Aug. 25 18.54

16 Nov 1931 – CHINA FLOOD THE RELIEF APPEAL. 50,000,000 PERSONS HOMELESS

Huffington Post (pending) Comments:

 Screen Shot 2013-08-26 at , August 26, 10.28.33 AM

•••

1888 : Carbon Dioxide Under 310 Parts Per Million:

ARGUS

Page 6

1888 : Low CO2 Floods Kill Hundreds Of Thousands Of People In China

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/6100646

•••

More via Steven Goddard :

Climate Attribution Finally Achieved

Posted on Real Science April 7, 2013 by 

This car is responsible for the 1931 floods which killed two million people in China.

ScreenHunter_93 Apr. 07 09.06 Below350.org Below350.orghttp://news.google.com/newspapers

•••

UPDATE

via Steven Goddard :

Deadliest 15 Floods In History Occurred With CO2 Below 350 PPM

Obama says that floods are getting worse due to global warming, but as is always the case, he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. A storm surge in the year 1530 killed more than 1,000 times as many people as Sandy’s storm surge.

Extreme floods below 250


WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy

green-agenda

 

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

GLOBAL warming aka climate change has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.

THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome

THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.

NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:

aaaaaa

AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.

THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.

WE are given clues as to the motives of this extreme agenda from various statements by prominent environmental ‘icons’…

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism

– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” – Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

*

VIV Forbes on how the control of population growth and people’s lifestyles manifests today through the control of energy supply…

The “zero-emissions” zealots want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power. They oppose the main thing that sets us apart from all other species – the use of fire from explosives, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.

They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will be powered and lubricated by windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, distilled whiskey and water wheels.

Western nations, driven by a global agenda of climate alarmism, are destroying their profitable industries with carbon taxes; and their promotion of expensive, intermittent green energy is pushing us back down the energy ladder; and our competitors in Asia are climbing the energy ladder as quickly as they can. At the same time, the enormous waste of public money on government promotion of the climate industry has created a global fiscal mess.

Unless reversed, this wasteful de-energising policy will drive much of the world’s population back to the poverty and famines which often prevailed in the past. Some see the inevitable de-population this would cause as a desirable goal.

READ the whole post here: Falling Down the Energy Ladder | US Issues

JO Nova on how the radical environmental movement has succeeded in the implementation of draconian climate change policy that has created an era of energy poverty that is destroying western economies and hurting the poor…

Electricity prices declined for forty years. Obviously that had to stop.

Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade.  As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…

Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.

indexed-real-consumer-electricity-prices 1955-2018a

For most of the 20th Century the Australian grid was hotch potch of separate state grids and mini grids. (South Australia was only connected in 1990). In 1998 the NEM (National Energy Market) began, a feat that finally made bad management possible on a large scale. Though after decades of efficiency gains, Australians would have to wait years to see new higher “world leading” prices. For the first years of the NEM prices stayed around $30/MWh.

But sooner or later  a national system is a sitting duck for one small mind to come along and truly muck things up.

Please spread this graph far and wide.

Thanks to a Dr Michael Crawford who did the original, excellent graph.

Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came… « JoNova

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

Donate with PayPal

•••

Energy Poverty and Skyrocketing Power Prices related :

Climate Scam related and the Malthusian Motive :

 

 


Shock news : Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at , December 11, 7.30.20 pm Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at , December 11, 7.30.33 pm

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/hypocrisy

•••

Do as I say, not as I do…

Global Warming Climate Change hypocrisy at its finest at COP20 (and counting) via U.S.News.com :

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint

Hardly green, Lima U.N. climate talks on track for record carbon footprint.

download (1)

An Andean Indian woman wearing a head dress, attends the inauguration of the ‘People’s Summit’ in Lima, Peru, on Monday. The ‘People’s Summit’ is an alternative forum that demands that climatic justice should be reflected in international and national policies, and will be held parallel to the Climate Change Conference ‘COP20’.

By FRANK BAJAK, Associated Press

LIMA, Peru (AP) — The current U.N. climate talks will be the first to neutralize all the greenhouse gas pollution they generate, offset by host country Peru’s protection of forest at three different reserves, organizers say.

Now the bad news: The Lima conference is expected to have the biggest carbon footprint of any U.N. climate meeting measured to date.

At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations’ burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.

The venue is one big reason. It had to be built.

Eleven football fields of temporary structures arose for the 13-day negotiations from what three months ago was an empty field behind Peru’s army’s headquarters. Concrete was laid, plumbing installed, components flown in from as far as France and Brazil.

Standing in the midday sun here can get downright uncomfortable, but the Lima sun is not reliable. That’s one reason solar panels were not used.

For electricity, the talks are relying exclusively on diesel generators.

Organizers had planned to draw power from Peru’s grid, which is about 52 percent fed by non-polluting hydroelectric power. “We worked to upgrade transformers and generators but for some reason it didn’t work,” said Alvarez.

[ALSO: EPA Proposes Tighter Smog Standards]

Peru’s hydroelectric power could be in danger by mid-century, anyway. Much of that water comes from glaciers that are melting at an accelerated pace. Peru is hardly on a green trajectory. Though it emits in a year the greenhouse gases that China spews in three days it has doubled its carbon output in the past decade.

Nor is there a guarantee that the 580 square miles (1,500 square kilometers) of forest — the size of Houston, Texas — offsetting the talks’ carbon pollution won’t someday be gone. It must lie unperturbed for a half century in order to neutralize carbon emitted at the conference.

Alvarez itemized the talks’ carbon footprint:

—Construction, nearly 20 percent of the footprint.

—Jet fuel burned by the estimated 11,000 delegates and observers who flew in from abroad. About 30 percent.

—Local transportation. Organizers hired more than 300 buses since there are no public transit services to the venue. All burn fossil fuels. About 15-20 percent.

—Electricity, solid waste treatment, water, paper, food, disposable plates and cups, keeping 40,000 police on high alert. The balance.

Continue Reading »


See Also :

UN (Climate) Related :