web analytics

PERSPECTIVE

By Pete Moore On August 17th, 2019

Notwithstanding that the author is wrong about CO2 and so-called climate change, this is a very good article –

36 Responses to “PERSPECTIVE”

  1. Notwithstanding that the author is wrong about CO2 and so-called climate change,

    No, he’s not wrong. You and your fellow climate change liars are wrong, and you know it.

  2. Anyway, it’s a very interesting piece.

  3. Yes Pete, good catch.

  4. Very good piece. Thanks for that.

  5. Peter – do you recall ‘acid rain’? Whatever happened to it? I read that it was a hoax but nonetheless, £millions went from the UK to Germany (and then to a jewish slush fund) as ‘compensation’.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603

    Acid rain was succeeded by the “hole in the ozone layer” as the next environmental worry, which in turn was pushed off the stage by global warming. Oops, I forgot! Just before global warming we briefly worried about global cooling, causing drought, famine, frozen oceans etc, fears triggered by a small dip in average northern hemisphere temperatures from 1940 to mid-1970s. As the fella said – “You’d have to wonder”.

    William Reville is associate professor of Biochemistry and Public Awareness of Science Officer at UCC

    University College Cork

  6. very interesting piece.

  7. Peter – do you recall ‘acid rain’? Whatever happened to it? I read that it was a hoax

    No Allan, acid rain was and remains a fact. It is caused by sulphur dioxide from coal fired power stations. It caused forests to lose their leaves and was mostly stopped when sulphur scrubbers were added to the smoke-stacks:

    “Acid rain is a rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic, meaning that it has elevated levels of hydrogen ions (low pH). It can have harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals and infrastructure. Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids. Some governments have made efforts since the 1970s to reduce the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere with positive results.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

  8. Oops, I forgot! Just before global warming we briefly worried about global cooling, causing drought, famine, frozen oceans etc, fears triggered by a small dip in average northern hemisphere temperatures from 1940 to mid-1970s. As the fella said – “You’d have to wonder”.

    The “global cooling” lie keeps getting recycled by the climate-change liars. For the 199th time, “global cooling” was not seriously proposed by reputable scientists in the 1970s, but it keeps coming round like a hobby horse on a carousel:

    “By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide’s effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide’s warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that “a very significant warming of global climate” was probable.[6]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

  9. No Allan, acid rain was and remains a fact.

    No Peter – it’s just not so:

    http://www.fao.org/3/v0290e/v0290e07.htm

    The air pollution/forest decline connection: The “Waldsterben” theory refuted

    O. Kandler

    The results of a decade of research, primarily in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, contradict claims that air pollution was leading to widespread forest decline in central Europe.

    Dr Otto Kandler is emeritus professor and formerly held the chair in botany at the Institute of Botany, Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich. Germany.

    Not that removing SO2/NOx was a bad thing, but its effect was grossly exaggerated. Likewise, having better energy efficiency is a good thing, but not having it won’t destroy the planet: that would be done by having the apes invade Europe and North America

  10. That was a good and interesting article Pete, thanks for posting it.

    And as Peter has pointed out, you’re not fooling anyone when it comes to pretending that you believe man is having no influence on the earth’s climate.

  11. lmao….. it’s the Sun and the Earth’s orbit period.

  12. Patrick

    lmao….. it’s the Sun and the Earth’s orbit period.

    Why do you keep spouting this same nonsense Patrick. The sun and earth’s orbit have not altered in any way that would affect the Earth’s climate.
    the only thing that has changed which can affect the climate, is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    This isn’t rocket science. it’s not difficult to understand.

  13. Dave Alton –

    The sun and earth’s orbit have not altered in any way that would affect the Earth’s climate. the only thing that has changed which can affect the climate, is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Just to be clear; are you suggesting that without human-induced CO2 the Earth’s climate would be constant?

  14. Wow, seriously WOW!!!

    There has never been a statement more bereft of scientific perspective than that highlighted by Pete above. Total, complete ignorance – and how to debate with it?

  15. Just to be clear; are you suggesting that without human-induced CO2 the Earth’s climate would be constant?

    I’m sure that Dave will answer for himself, but in the meantime I am posting a strawman alert.

    Obviously the climate has changed many times over the four billion years before our ape-man ancestors climbed down from the trees in Africa (sorry Allan). But it does not follow that humans cannot possibly be the main agents of climate change now.

    Total, complete ignorance – and how to debate with it?

  16. “are you suggesting that without human-induced CO2 the Earth’s climate would be constant?”

    Clearly he is not – and even to ask the question suggests a serious deficit in reading comprehension.

  17. Peter – as the ‘acid rain’ scam showed, any stunt can be pulled. The ‘climate change’ one is the biggest because it facilitates taxation and control. If it were for real, the glitterati and moneyed airheads would not be flying to the world’s richest places to demand that something be done about us – but not them.

    If you really wanted to protect the natural world, focus on elimination of plastics, 5G and GMOs – those really can destroy the ecosphere

  18. Acid rain was a huge problem in the midwest/eastern US

    It’s much less of a problem now thanks to ” evil government regulations ” ( Clean Air Act of 1970 ). Slowly, things have become much better.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/climate/climate-fwd-acid-rain.html

  19. More detail on ” burdensome government regulation in private markets ” which solved the acid rain problem in the US

    https://www.edf.org/approach/markets/acid-rain

    Problem
    Decades ago, sulfur dioxide pollution – mostly from coal-fired power plants – was causing acid rain and snow, killing aquatic life and forests. A debate ensued: Regulation would direct all plant owners to cut pollution by a set amount, but this method, critics argued, would be costly and ignore the needs of local plant operators.

    Solution
    We devised a cap-and-trade approach, written into the 1990 Clean Air Act. It required cutting overall sulfur emissions in half, but let each company decide how to make the cuts. Power plants that lowered their pollution more than required could sell those extra allowances to other plants. A new commodities market was born.

    Results
    Sulfur emissions went down faster than predicted and at one-fourth of the projected cost. Since its launch, cap and trade for acid rain has been regarded widely as highly effective at solving the problem in a flexible, innovative way.

    I’m begging the Fake News Commandos to dispute any of this. Please.

  20. lmao….. it’s the Sun and the Earth’s orbit period.

    Why do you keep spouting this same nonsense Patrick. The sun and earth’s orbit have not altered in any way that would affect the Earth’s climate.
    the only thing that has changed which can affect the climate, is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    This isn’t rocket science. it’s not difficult to understand.

    OMG….. Where to begin… I could just laugh, or I could be insulting.. instead I will just try to educate…

    This isn’t rocket science. it’s not difficult to understand

    It’s a hell of a lot harder than rocket science… Rocket science is easy. We can put a man on the moon, a probe on Mars, probes out beyond our solar system, we can even shoot a rocket from New Mexico and have it hit a dime on the otherside of the world. Rocket Science is a science, we know ALL the variables and we can control them.

    “Climate Science” is NOT a science… we don’t know all the variables, and we can’t control the few variables that we do know… the computer models don’t work why Dave… you’re a computer guy….. GIGO The fact that you would even make the statement that this is simple shows how truly lacking in knowledge you are.

    The sun and earth’s orbit have not altered in any way that would affect the Earth’s climate.… sorry that did make me chuckle… such ignorance…

    The Earth orbit’s the Sun held in place by Stellar gravity that orbit is not stable, it’s instability is unnoticeable to us on the Earth because we are riding on it and the intensity of the suns gravitational pull fluctuates according to the intensity of it’s light. Light actually exerts force outward against the Suns Gravity and the Suns light and gravity both fluctuate affecting the Planets in it’s grasp.

    To better illustrate the strength of the Sun’s gravity, let’s take an example. Let us say for instance that you weigh 100 kilograms here on Earth. If you are on the surface of the Sun, you would feel like you weigh 2,800 kilograms. This is because the Sun’s gravity is 28 times that of the Earth’s gravity
    The gravity of the Sun pulls all of its own mass into a nearly perfect sphere. At the Sun’s center or core, temperatures and pressures run so high that fusion reactions can easily occur. The huge quantity of light, pressure, and energy streaming out of the Sun counteracts its gravity pull. The effects and influence of the gravity pull of the Sun could extend out for up to two light years away, the point at which the pull and gravity from other neighboring stars is bigger if not stronger.

    Our knowledge in Astro Physics is very limited. We have only been able to measure outside of our planets gravitational field for less than 50yrs…. and you believe we know it all ?

    Why is the Earth tilted on it’s axis ? Why does the Earth drift in it’s orbit ? Why does our magnetosphere every couple of thousand years reverse ? Where did our moon come from ? What effect does the moon have on the Earths drift ? What effect does it have on our tilt ?

    Can you answer these questions….

    How much water vapor is in the atmosphere at this moment ? How much will be in the atmosphere 100yrs from now or 3 days from now ? Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas and the largest Earthbound variable in climate…. you can’t even measure the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, yet without being able to measure the single most important ingredient in the atmosphere you want to make predictions with the smallest ingredient in our atmosphere.

    The Earth is over 4 billion years old, in those billions of years the planet has frozen completely over and has been completely devoid of ice both 1000s of times…. the Climate is always in flux…. it has gotten both Warmer and Colder over and over long before man ever stepped foot on the planet.

    Yet cows farting is going to counteract all those billions of years in the cycle with less than one percent of the atmosphere…..

    I’m sorry….. go put on a headdress shake a rattle and dance around the fire… you’ll have a greater effect on the Climate than co2…. The current average outdoor atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is about 0.0407% by volume. That teeeny tiny percent is going to kill everyone…..

    You’ve been brainwashed and conned by one of the oldest flim flams that has ever existed…. conmen saying they can control the weather/climate….

    Want to buy a bridge ?

  21. Pete Moore,

    //Just to be clear; are you suggesting that without human-induced CO2 the Earth’s climate would be constant?//

    No not at all. My response is to patricks post.
    The earth’s climate has never been constant. There are a multitude of factors that have affected the climate of the planet in the past. The point I was making to Patrick is that none of these factors are affecting the climate significantly at the moment, with the exception of man-made greenhouse gases.

  22. Allan@Aberdeen,

    There has never been a statement more bereft of scientific perspective than that highlighted by Pete above. Total, complete ignorance – and how to debate with it?

    Well you can’t debate Allan, because you’re an idiot who can’t even understand, let alone comprehend what I’ve written.

  23. none of these factors are affecting the climate significantly at the moment, with the exception of man-made greenhouse gases.

    Show me the math that backs that statement up.

  24. Patrick Van Roy,

    //Show me the math that backs that statement up.//

    What backs that statement up, is the huge amount of scientific data, from multiple science disciplines, spanning the last few decades, across dozens of countries.
    This data shows that in last 200 years, the only significant factor which has changed which can affect the climate this quickly, is the large increase in greenhouse gases.
    This data is freely available from multiple sources on the internet Patrick.

  25. What backs that statement up, is the huge amount of scientific data, from multiple science disciplines, spanning the last few decades, across dozens of countries.
    This data shows that in last 200 years, the only significant factor which has changed which can affect the climate this quickly, is the large increase in greenhouse gases.
    This data is freely available from multiple sources on the internet Patrick.

    And it has been proven that the mathematics that all that was based on Dave were fudged by the original “scientists” that promoted it… they faked the data.

    You sure you don’t want to own a Bridge…. I have several lovely ones to sell

  26. ” we can even shoot a rocket from New Mexico and have it hit a dime on the otherside of the world”

    Unless it’s a heat seeking missile, in which case it won’t work unless you understand and take into account the infrared absorption effects of greenhouse gases like co2.

    But we do, and that’s also how we know the increased greenhouse effect almost certainly must be heating the planet (even if we couldn’t observe that heating, which we have, and if we could find a negating cooling effect somewhere else, which we haven’t).

  27. Patrick

    And it has been proven that the mathematics that all that was based on Dave were fudged by the original “scientists” that promoted it… they faked the data.

    Well this is news to me Patrick, perhaps you could explain why the vast majority (99%) of scientistsin different countries around the world and in different scientific disciplines, are for some obscure reason lying, and why every major world government seems to be going along with this so-called lie?

  28. 99% of science doesn’t buy into it Dave…. another Lie by the AGW Crowd.

    The scientists want money to fund their studies and if you can get millions to study something they’ll take it….

    and governments want to use the lie to control the population.

    Both are very simple reasons and as old as man…. greed and control.

  29. ” governments want to use the lie to control the population.”

    If that is so then what are they waiting for.

    Instead they are being dragged kicking and screaming to do something, anything about it.

  30. What you’ve written above Patrick, is conspiracy theory nonsense worthy of Allan.

  31. Dave Alton –

    Frank O’Dwyer’s puerile insults aside, we can see what you said:

    The sun and earth’s orbit have not altered in any way that would affect the Earth’s climate. the only thing that has changed which can affect the climate, is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    “the only thing that has changed which can affect the climate, is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    We know what you mean by greenhouse gases – human induced CO2. You are saying that the Earth’s climate would be stable without human-induced CO2 increasing.

  32. damn pesky apes 4 billion years the planet survived meteor strikes freezing heating several polar shifts… but no they just had to have a hamburger and destroy the whole thing….

    lmao freakin wackos

  33. Pete Moore

    //We know what you mean by greenhouse gases – human induced CO2. You are saying that the Earth’s climate would be stable without human-induced CO2 increasing.//

    I use the term greenhouse gases because it’s not just CO2. Water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and the warmer the atmosphere the more water vapour it can hold.

    I’ve already answered this question Pete, in case you missed it, here’s my answer again:

    The earth’s climate would not be stable, even if man we’re not present on the planet, as has been proven by scientists, mainly climate change scientists.
    However, these factors that influenced the planets climate in the past were usually very, very slow acting, which is not the case with current temperature rises.
    Also, none of these factors which would have affected the earth’s climate are having any major influence on the earth’s climate at the moment. (For example, increased solar heat output, or significant volcanic activity.)

  34. Patrick Van Roy,
    //damn pesky apes 4 billion years the planet survived meteor strikes freezing heating several polar shifts… but no they just had to have a hamburger and destroy the whole thing….//

    Yet another thing you don’t understand about climate change Patrick.
    Climate change will destroy the planet. But it will make things incredibly uncomfortable for the creatures living on it.

  35. Will NOT destroy the planet.

  36. Problem
    Decades ago, sulfur dioxide pollution – mostly from coal-fired power plants – was causing acid rain and snow, killing aquatic life and forests.

    I’m begging the Fake News Commandos to dispute any of this. Please.

    I disputed that fake news above…….

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-made-the-acid-rain-myth-finally-evaporate-1.900603

    How dangerous was acid rain? The most comprehensive study was commissioned in 1980 by US president Jimmy Carter. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP) examined the damage caused by acid rain and recommended solutions. In 1982 president Ronald Regan raised the annual budget for NAPAP to $100 million. The final cost of NAPAP, the most costly environmental study in US history, was $537 million.

    The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900. It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America. Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again. The study also found that in many cases forests were suffering debilitation due to insects or drought and not acid rain.

    The NAPAP reported in 1990. The findings were explosive: first, acid rain had not injured forests or crops in US or Canada; second, acid rain had no observable effect on human health; third, only a small number of lakes had been acidified by acid rain and these could be rehabilitated by adding lime to the water. In summary, acid rain was a nuisance, not a catastrophe.

    The findings of NAPAP were not welcomed by the powers-that-be, many of whom had staked their reputations on the impending Clean Air Act which would call for drastic reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. The NAPAP was ignored.

    As soon as the lie takes hold, the majority will believe it for, after all, who doesn’t want to be in the majority. However, the lie might just have gone too far….

    https://twitter.com/boseph_returns/status/1162722733702242304

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/americans_say_murder_more_likely_than_suicide_in_epstein_case

    Americans aren’t buying that disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in jail last weekend.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 29% of American Adults believe Epstein actually committed suicide while in jail.

    What a load of conspiracy theorists