By Daniel A Klein et al.
Abstract
It is now well-established that rising global temperatures are largely the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The "consensus" position attributes the increase in atmospheric CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuels by industrial processes. This is the mechanism which underpins the theory of manmade global warming.
Our data demonstrate that those who subscribe to the consensus theory have overlooked the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions. While a small part of the rise in emissions is attributable to industrial activity, it is greatly outweighed (by >300 times) by rising volumes of CO2 produced by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Moreover, the bacterial emissions, unlike industrial CO2, precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years.
This paper also posits a mechanism for the increase in bacterial CO2 emissions. A series of natural algal blooms, beginning in the late 19th Century, have caused mass mortality among the bacteria's major predators: brachiopod molluscs of the genus Tetrarhynchia. These periods of algal bloom, as the palaeontological record shows, have been occurring for over three million years, and are always accompanied by a major increase in carbon dioxide emissions, as a result of the multiplication of bacteria when predator pressure is reduced. They generally last for 150-200 years. If the current episode is consistent with this record, we should expect carbon dioxide emissions to peak between now and mid-century, then return to background levels. Our data suggest that current concerns about manmade global warming are unfounded.
Journal of Geoclimatic Studies (2007) 13:3. 223-231
This article is a bit over the top for a scientific paper. Note that there is no Department of Climatology at the University of Arizona, nor is there a Daniel Klein or Mandeep Gupta in the U of A directory. Neither is there an Institute of Geoclimatic Studies. The whole things looks like an elaborate hoax. One should note that the very first sentence of the abstract is wrong. A global warming atheist would have said "widely-believed" rather than "well-established".
UPDATE (RELIAPUNDIT):
IT IS DEFINITELY A HOAX; BLUE CRAB BLVD HAS THE DETAILS. WHO WOULD DO THIS?
UNSCRUPULOUS ECO-NUTSIES TRYING TO DISCREDIT US DISSENTERS/SKEPTICS.
IT IS DEFINITELY A HOAX; BLUE CRAB BLVD HAS THE DETAILS. WHO WOULD DO THIS?
UNSCRUPULOUS ECO-NUTSIES TRYING TO DISCREDIT US DISSENTERS/SKEPTICS.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Good fact-checking, all! Nipped this one in the bud.
ReplyDeleteYep. A difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are always fact-checking, especially when we're being told something we kinda "want" to be true.
Pity the Libs don't. Tell them some BS they want to believe and they'll swallow it hook, line, and sinker. And if you tell them it was BS, they'll call you a liar for saying so.