"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Saturday, March 31, 2007

CARBON DIOXIDE RANT!

ALWAYS REMEMBER:

(1) INDISPUTABLE FACT: CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT;
IT IS A NATURAL PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND PLANTS NEED IT.
(2) INDISPUTABLE FACT: ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS TODAY ARE NOT AT HISTORICAL HIGHS;
THEY WERE NEARLY TWICE AS HIGH 70 YEARS AGO - (WHEN THE DEVELOPED WORLD WAS LESS DEVELOPED AND WAS PRODUCING LESS "MAN-MADE" CO2, AND BEFORE INDIA AND CHINA HAD ANY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO SPEAK OF). GLOBAL TEMP'S 70 YEARS AGO WERE NOT DRASTICALLY HIGH AND THE CO2 LEVELS DID NOT REPEAT DID NOT SET IN MOTION A SERIES OF CASCADING ECOLOGICAL DISASTERS.

THE HOCKEY-STICK IS AS BOGUS AS MICHAEL BELLESILES ANTI-GUN "DOCUMENTS."
(3) INDISPUTABLE FACT: THE ICE CORE RECORD PROVES THAT CO2 IS NOT A CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, BUT A LAGGING INDICATOR;
THE ICE CORE RECORD PROVES THAT CO2 LEVELS INCREASE 800-1000 YEARS AFTER GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASES - NOT BEFORE.
(4) INDISPUTABLE FACT: REDUCING MAN-MADE CO2 OUTPUT WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. BUPKUS.
CO2 DOESN'T CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, SO REDUCING CANNOT REVERSE IT, REDUCING IT CANNOT SLOW IT.
THE "MAN-MADE CO2 GLOBAL-WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE" CROWD WANTS TO RAISE TAXES AND INCREASE REGULATIONS ON INDUSTRY AND CURTAIL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THESE ARE GOALS WHICH THIS LEFTIST CROWD HAS ADVOCATED FOR A THE LAST FIFTY YEARS - BEFORE, AND INDEPENDENT OF, THEIR "MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING" ARGUMENT. CONVENIENT, ISN'T IT!?

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A BOGEYMAN WHICH WAS INVENTED BY THE LEFT IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS THEIR LONG-HELD BELIEFS - BELIEFS WHICH CAME UNDER ASSAULT WHEN THE USSR FAILED, AND WHEN INDIA AND CHINA LIBERALIZED THEIR ECONOMIES AND OPENED UP.
THE POLICIES THIS CROWD ADVOCATES WILL ACTUALLY SLOW OR STOP ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IS THE BEST ANTI-POVERTY WEAPON - IT HAS BEEN FOR ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

THEIR POLICIES WILL ARTIFICIALLY MISDIRECT INVESTMENT AND CONSUMPTION INTO NON-PRODUCTIVE AREAS WHICH MEANS IT IS IN FACT WASTEFUL.

THE RESOURCES SHOULD BE SPENT ON INCREASING INVESTMENT IN INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IN THE THIRD WORLD.

TO END POVERTY IN SOUTH AMERICAN AND AFRICA, THEY NEED TO BUILD MORE POWER PLANTS, ELECTRICAL GRIDS, FACTORIES, AND HIGHWAYS. THEY NEED TO PRODUCE AND CONSUME MORE.

10 comments:

DavidCyrus said...

Whenever I see the words "indisputable fact" on TABloggers, I smile.

Sure, I understand that it's all rhetoric, but I also know I can count on those "facts" to be, if not completely incorrect, at the very least, disputable.

Such as Indisputable Fact #1 - CO2 is not a pollutant. Somebody should probably alert the American Heritage Science Dictionary, since they define "pollutant" using C02 as an example. We can't very well have a scientific dictionary disputing indisputable facts now, can we?

Nor can we have NOAA disputing Fact 2 on their website. In fact, they pretty much dispute every indisputable fact you've listed.

I wonder if they serve at the pleasure of the President, and can (and SHOULD) be dismissed?

Reliapundit said...

Co2 is natural and non toxicv paret of the atmposphere. anybody who lists it as a [pollutrant is a PROPAGANDIST.

plants NEED CO2 to survive.

david dunkle you are an asshole.

and i got your number.

the scientist who actually did most of the ice sampling said himself that the fact is that the CO2 increases were a lagging indicator.

noaa is a hotbed of leftism; i know: i have very VERY close "acquaintances" working there. they are all LEFTISTS who got into ecology studies in the 70's and 80's. they are NOT unbaised. they have twisted the facst into lies - like al gore.

REPEAT: look at the data yourself david dunkle of melbourne fla.

CO2 is lagging indicator; the ice cores actually show that CO2 rises 800 years after temps rise. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE THE CAUSE.

REPEAT: look at the source data yourself, david dunkle.

you david dunkle are a dupe of the left.

OPEN YOUR EYES.

i gave you the facts. the truth. the truth will set you free.

bellesiles LIED. gore LIES too.

they both lied to advance a pre-existing political agenda.

i have no agenda.

i serve the TRUTH.

try it someday.

your leftist retorts are shallow and tiresome.

you bore me. CLICK.

Reliapundit said...

david cyrus: yahoo!

Joe Yangtree said...

Let's take up the issue of "indisputable fact" #2. If you meant the history of the planet, you are correct. However, you go on to state, "THEY WERE NEARLY TWICE AS HIGH 70 YEARS AGO - (WHEN THE DEVELOPED WORLD WAS LESS DEVELOPED AND WAS PRODUCING LESS "MAN-MADE" CO2, AND BEFORE INDIA AND CHINA HAD ANY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO SPEAK OF)." This is obviously wrong, according to everyone.

Now I fully expect some crying, whining, and name-calling from 'pundit (perhaps an attempt to change the subject, on a good day), but surely no actual facts to support the assertion or admission that this was simply incorrect. Both those are simply beyond his capabilities.

Reliapundit said...

thanks for coming back joe.

here is a link to the co2 fact:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-hi
story-of-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

btw: did you haver the guts to watch the "global warning swindle" documentary?

please do watch it and post a review at your blog. i will read and then get a debate going here.

Reliapundit said...

also: you tacitly agree with the other facts, then?

all are dispositive.

which means you now admit co2 is a bogeyman, right?

Joe Yangtree said...

If there's one thing that I've learned with you, 'pundit, it's take one thing at a time, because you can't handle any more than that. If you want, we'll take them piece-by-piece, but I have quite a lot to say on issue 2.

First let me note that this paper does nothing except take previous measurements by other scientists, combine them, smooth them, and present them. There is no discussion or hypothesis on what could lead to such giant rises in CO2 or their subsequent precipitous falls. Naturally, since neither of those topics is discussed, there is no discussion of why, since the CO2 measurements have been continuously recorded since 1958, we don't see either of those phenomenons since that time.

Given that, let's take a look at some of the underlying data and see what we can note from it. First, the sites of these measurements not chosen to be accurate representations of the general atmospheric CO2 as the current sites are. Secondly, looking at the data, we can see that, in many cases, the large fluctuations in measurement weren't year to year or even month to month, but day to day, and even hour to hour. Let's take the Misra data set as an example. Look at the first line of measured CO2 percentage, taken at 06:00:00 on 12/14/1941. They show .052, .063, and .087 at the respective measurement heights. at 10:00:00 4 hours later the measurements were .031, .030, and .037. approximately 1/2 of the CO2 concentration measured just 4 hours earlier. Of course, that's just one data set. Let's look at some more. Duerst, Kreutz, Hock-Schollander, and to a lesser extent, Haldane all show tremendous fluctuations over very, very short periods of time. Ones that don't show these incredible fluctuations, such as Buch and Steinhauser all show measurements much more in line with the ice core record and well below the current CO2 level.

Please also note, the Misra data is especially important, since it is the only titrimetric data measurement between 1939 and 1950 that he uses.

One last note. Ever since the modern measurements have been taken, we have seen very regular annual cycles of CO2, peaking in April/May/June and bottoming out in Sept/Oct, causing 10-15 ppm difference. Looking at Kreutz, the volumetric measurement from 1939-1941, we see April/May/June hovering around 340-370 ppm whereas August/Sept shoots up to over 500 ppm.

So, in summary, let me say that wildly varying data (in ways we know that it shouldn’t vary) from 2 scientists in specific locations that are not controlled for any kind of CO2 contamination (Misra's location even seems to be chosen because of the agricultural CO2 contamination) with no even suggested theory as to how these spikes came about or why they dissipated isn't much. I guess that's why this paper was published here, instead of an accepted peer-reviewed journal.

On the other side, we have a method of measuring historic levels of CO2 at a location we know has no contamination issues and that current measurements match almost exactly with the continuous measurements of other locations chosen to avoid contamination. This doesn't seem like much of a contest, but somehow, you've just accepted the obviously weaker position as "fact".

As for the global warming swindle, I've only watched a few excerpts, but watching the whole thing and doing a review is an excellent idea.

Reliapundit said...

jo-jo:

do you dispute THE FACT that according to the ice cores that co2 was a LAGGING indicator of warming - occurring 800-1000 years AFTER warming?

please respond wiothour writing a verbose overly technical OBFUSCATION.

say "yes" or "no."

if "yes" then simply explain why YOU know better than the scientist who did MOST OF THE RESEARCH and took most of the ice cores.

he describes his research and conclusions in the doc.

it DEVASTATES demiolishes nullifies Gore's and tyour idea that CO2 causes warming.

it doesn't cause warming; it is a result of warming; that's what the ice core record proves.

i also am glad you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but a natural elements NECESSARY for life.

Always On Watch Two said...

The most recent issue of Time Magazine has a cover which reads "The Global Warming Survival Guide: 51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference." The propaganda war is now on--full blast!

Joe Yangtree said...

"please respond wiothour writing a verbose overly technical OBFUSCATION."
I like how, in your world, discussing science scientifically, with references is obfuscation. I guess that's why you feel qualified to make scientific proclamations about facts. Not having any idea what you're talking about frees you from having to worry about contradictory evidence. If you find something you agree with, it's a fact in your world. I guess that method does save time and effort, but a lot of people prefer some factual basis for their scientific beliefs. I'm one of those.

Since you want to give up on the 1940's spike and move on, let's do so. I had a few more points waiting in the wings, but I didn't want to overload you. Looks like I did anyway.

do you dispute THE FACT that according to the ice cores that co2 was a LAGGING indicator of warming - occurring 800-1000 years AFTER warming
No, I don't dispute that data. It interesting that you rely on it, since your argument about the 1940's spike relies on ice core data from much more recently being incorrect. It seems a little disingenuous to argue in the same post that ice core data is reliable back to 250,000 years and, at the same time argue that it's not even accurate for 100 years, but clarity of thought has never been one of your strong suits. Will you try to explain this obvious contradiction? My money is on "no".

it DEVASTATES demiolishes nullifies Gore's and tyour idea that CO2 causes warming.
This is an example of the classic mistake that you continuously make in this debate. You assume that scientists are proposing that the climate is entirely driven by CO2 (and no warming has ever happened from another source), when that is far from the case. It is a factor, not the only factor. I've explained this to you many times before, but it seems like it will never take. Since we're talking about agreeing with the scientists on this paper, let's see what they actually said about their conclusions:

"Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing , which is that further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks that are also at work for the present-day and future climate."

Translation for you. The scientists that wrote this paper are pointing out that their ice core results are not at all inconsistent with current anthropogenic global warming theory and may actually support it. So obviously I have nothing to explain, since the scientists' conclusions and mine are the same. Why is it that you don't know about their conclusions? Did you actually read their paper? Perhaps you were speaking about a different paper. It's always hard to tell, since you hardly ever provide any links (that would take effort and understanding, after all). If you have another one, please provide it next time.

As for word definitions of "pollutant", who really cares what label you give it. NaCl is also essential for most multi-cellular life, but putting it in a fresh water fish tank could safely be considered to be polluting it, so pollutant seems to be a contextual definition, not defined by the other properties of the "pollutant". In any event, science and reality are notoriously resistant to man-made labels. If CO2 generated by humans is raising the temperature, then it really doesn't matter what we call it.