Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Carbon Tax - Do your own research

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Carbon Tax - Do your own research

    The following transcript was sent to me by a (secondary) scientist who I greatly admire and respect.

    Please consider this referenced and measured peer information before you believe Dulia Dullard



    -paper-



    How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

    Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.

    Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

    Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

    Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

    Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

    Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

    Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

    I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.

    The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

    On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.

    ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

    Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

    Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

    The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

    Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
    Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

    Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
    Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

    The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

    Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

    Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

    The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.

    We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!

    Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.

    Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

    Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

    The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

    Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

    The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.

    Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

    Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

    The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

    • It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.

    • Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

    The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

    1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

    2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.

    3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

    4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

    • Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

    • The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.

    Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page.

    The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialisation back then.

    The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.

    The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate

    It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.

    For details see: Solar Cycle 24 Update | Watts Up With That?
    and Another Dalton Minimum? « Climate Change Denier

    The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.

    Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.

    Polls on Climate Change

    Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!
    Popular beliefs are not fact

    The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.

    A Carbon Tax

    Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.

    Gregg D Thompson
    Climate Researcher
    Astronomer
    Environmentalist
    Author of two science books
    Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
    Author of science magazine articles
    Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
    Nature photographer
    Has a great interest in most sciences
    Loves creating innovation in art
    Melkor
    Bas Rutten
    Last edited by Melkor; 17-03-2011, 03:48 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Melkor View Post
    We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural.
    As this affects the industry I work in, I am interested to know of the sources regarding this.
    They hung a sign up in our town "If you live it up, you won't live it down"-Tom Waits

    Comment


    • #3
      Good info melkor.

      I knew it was a money grab from the start but unfortunately blind Freddy doesn't see that.

      CFCs were found to be causing the ozone hole by 12 Dupont sponsored scientists. ( who all got very rich) royalties from the patents on CFC were due to stop so Dupont make this miraculous discovery and low and behold. New refrigerants with new patents.
      How can something that has a molecular weight far greater than air get to the ozone layer at yhe height of our atmosphere, an EPA had to get back to me on that one and the answer " arctic cyclonic winds" so you lose gas out of your fridge because you knife the evap and the gas flows all the way to the south pole then gets caught in arctic cyclonic winds and destroys the ozone layer letting more ultra violet light in.
      One of the best ways to make ozone is to expose oxygen to ultra violet light go figure
      Atlas Performance, dyna pumps, " your name goes here"

      Comment


      • #4
        seems to be the way of science as a business, someone has a convincing theory so it gets taught as fact for few decades until the profits start to dwindle and it's time to try out the next idea.
        Do you remember the good old days before the internet?

        when arguments were only entered into by the physically or intellectually able.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you Melkor.

          First thing I've seen in ages that should be sent out as a chain email.
          "Once upon a time we would obey in public, but in private we would be cynical; today, we announce cynicism, but in private we obey."

          Comment


          • #6
            Spend more time and money on renewable/alternative energy sources ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
              ^the link here is very misleading, the method used to quantify the contributions of various greenhouse gases is just plain wrong- the author substitutes the %concentrations of various greenhouse gases for greenhouse contribution.

              the author hilariously suggests that IPCC models being crunched on state of the art supercomputers are rubbish because they dont match his results with lotus 123 and 10 minutes on google worth of atmospheric gas concentrations.

              the vibration of intermolecular bonds such as the bond between water and oxygen or carbon and oxygen is how EM radiation is absorbed by a molecule, and this occurs at specific wavelengths corresponding to the strength of the intermolecular bond. if you like, the stiffer and shorter the bond the shorter the corresponding wavelength of photons that will excite the bond and only that wavelength with excite the bond and become absorbed.

              by the by, this is how they know what makes up the atmosphere on other planets/moons so its unusual that someone who claims to be an astonomer would be ignorant of this.



              Strong absorbance by water vapor occurs at wavelengths around 2900, 1950 and 1450 nanometers (nm),[1][2] with weaker absorption around 1200 and 970 nm,[3] and three additional sets of water-vapor absorption lines near 930, 820, and 730 nm
              Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm,[10] but its presence in the Earth's atmosphere accounts for just 26% of the greenhouse effect.[8] Carbon dioxide gas absorbs energy in some small segments of the thermal infrared spectrum that water vapor misses. This extra absorption within the atmosphere causes the air to warm just a bit more and the warmer the atmosphere the greater its capacity to hold more water vapor. This extra water vapor absorption further enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect.
              when you know the absorption bands for various gases and have sattelites with which to take measurements to compare with ground based data its pretty simple.

              also, this is not to say that i agree with a carbon tax. but people should disagree with it for the right reasons.

              unless the monies generated by a carbon tax are actually used to remove an amount of carbon from the atmosphere equal to the amount that has been put in, it does nothing effective to stop climate change.

              if something is to be done then it should be something that achieves its goal.

              a carbon tax in australia is a complete waste of time, futhermore we could reduce our emissions to ZERO and it would accomplish the same degree of fuck all as our global GHG contribution compared to the US, Russia, China ect.

              and finally, so what if the earth gets hotter and habital areas become reduced and we are living in another mass extinction event? if there is one thing that has held true over geological time its that nature likes to start from a clean sheet from time to time- in the same way the copernican revolution killed the view that the universe spun about the earth, climate change will kill the view that mother nature spins about the human race or for that matter any of the species that exists on earth right now.
              Last edited by g0zer; 17-03-2011, 09:16 AM.
              Originally posted by Bendito
              If we get to a stop and we are missing a dozen bikes and you are last, it was your fault. Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy.

              Comment


              • #8
                AN EXPLANATION OF THE PRIME MINISTER’S CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME

                Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere. Let’s say that we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.

                Let's go for a walk along this 1 kilometre bridge.

                The first 770 metres are nitrogen.

                The next 210 meters are oxygen.

                That's 980 meters of the 1 kilometre gone. Only 20 metres to go.

                The next 10 metres are water vapour. Only 10 metres left.

                The next 9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre to go.

                A few rare gases make up two thirds the first bit of that last metre. Just a few centimetres to go.

                The last 38 centimetres of the I kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot in the old measurement.

                97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural and there’s nothing we can do about that.

                So out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left - just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

                That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. World-wide, not in Australia.

                And of those 12 millimetres, Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimetre.

                That is less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a whole 1 kilometre!

                As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what the PM calls Carbon Pollution.

                Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by the PM.

                It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers until its 1kilometre length is surgically clean.

                Then the PM says that we have a huge problem - the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway.

                We'd laugh ourselves silly.

                That human hair on the 1 kilometre long bridge would have absolutely no impact on it.

                But we would be immensely angry if the PM demanded that we paid billions of dollars in a new tax to remove that hair.

                The people of Australia are being scammed by the biggest confidence trick in the history of this nation and it is being perpetrated on them by their very own government.

                And it’s because the average punter out there doesn’t actually understand that what the government says to them is a pack of lies, firstly about carbon pollution, when it’s about carbon dioxide gas that is not a pollutant at all, then about the extent of this alleged pollution problem that actually doesn’t exist. There’s no evidence that CO2 is causing climate change, global warming or anything.

                This analogy using the bridge and the hair should put things into perspective.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Melkor View Post
                  Gregg D Thompson
                  Climate Researcher
                  Astronomer
                  Environmentalist
                  Author of two science books
                  Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
                  Author of science magazine articles
                  Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
                  Nature photographer
                  Has a great interest in most sciences
                  Loves creating innovation in art
                  Regardless of the lack of any real information in anything above here... This should be enough for you to question every single word that this 'scientist' spouts.
                  Who does he/she work for?
                  What books?
                  What companies?
                  What magazines?

                  This is not a TRUE scientists sign off!!

                  I can put lot's of shite after my name... doesn't mean I have a clue what I'm talking about.

                  Does the total volume of CO2 make any difference when only a small change can make monumental differences?
                  Anyone ask what is the significance of a tiny change in CO2 volumes?

                  What disturbs me even more is the number so far who have swallowed this Today Tonight worthy nonsense. Even so far as to want look like did never what include Jooooolyas explanation....
                  Commander Keen and Shady 7/8 are doing the Kiwi Shitbox rally 2016 as the Dropkick Dropbears- donate here to help us change cancer!


                  Originally posted by Martin Luther King Jnr
                  One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
                  . .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A very interesting read, if the OP is ok about it, I would like to post this on a few other forums.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Melkor View Post
                      The following transcript was sent to me by a (secondary) scientist who I greatly admire and respect.
                      Originally posted by Captain Starfish View Post
                      First thing I've seen in ages that should be sent out as a chain email.
                      You really received it from him? I received that from family by email 5 days ago. It had already been doing the rounds.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When;
                        Similarly, carbon dioxide absorption bands occur around 1400, 1600 and 2000 nm,[10] but its presence in the Earth's atmosphere accounts for just 26% of the greenhouse effect.
                        and;
                        CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%.
                        I can understand why it's being fussed over so much.
                        This is general advice only and does not take into account your individual objectives, financial situation or needs (your personal circumstances). Before using this advice to decide whether to purchase a product you should consider how appropriate it is in regard to your personal circumstances.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The simple fact is if you read peer reviews articles, scientific journals published for scientists - there is simply one conclusion - Climate change is caused by C02 and human society is affecting climate by increasing the levels of C02 in the atmosphere...

                          There's a wealth of information available, but make sure you stick to peer-reviewed material and published journal documents. There's way too much junk science and people claiming things who are simply not climate scientists, are the lunatic fringe or have some other agenda. Shadow78 is right. Carbon tax or no carbon tax, its a different issue. The evidence for manmade climate change through the increase in C02 seems to be pretty solid.

                          Make sure you read more than one document and understand how the atmosphere is affected.

                          Analogy - A spoonful of sand in your carburetter will stop the largest truck. Small things can have a big effect.

                          YouTube - The 8 Minute Epoch: 65 million Years with James Hansen
                          Whatcha gonna do? Rap is not afraid of you
                          Beat is for Sonny Bono, beat is for Yoko Ono

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Melkor View Post
                            Gregg D Thompson
                            Climate Researcher
                            Astronomer
                            Environmentalist
                            Author of two science books
                            Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
                            Author of science magazine articles
                            Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
                            Nature photographer
                            Has a great interest in most sciences
                            Loves creating innovation in art
                            Gregg Thompson (astronomer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                            Yeah, he sounds like a reputable source. I mean, astronomy and climate change are basically the same thing, right?

                            Originally posted by A Professional Journal Article Search
                            Search Results: Your search for "Environmental Management" author: (Gregg Thompson) returned 0 results
                            Search Results: Your search for "Climate Change" author: (Gregg Thompson) returned 0 results
                            Search Results: Your search for "CO2 Emissions" author: (Gregg Thompson) returned 0 results

                            Personally, I am not a fan of the Carbon Tax at all, I think it's a shit way of managing something which needs to be far better understood, no argument there.

                            Scientific data gets interpreted differently by different people, I don't want to turn this into another climate change thread by responding to the scientific inaccuracies in that passage above, that's been hashed out repeatedly before in other threads.

                            But consider this - can we really afford to fuck this up? I mean, if putting in measures to limit and control CO2 emissions may, just may have a positive effect in the future, then I'm pretty happy to look at that as an option. This isn't something where we can go "I told you so", this is something which if it happens we go "oooh, now we're fingered".

                            Originally posted by Gregg D Thompson, Astronomer
                            Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.
                            Bollocks. Go have a look at the Vostok ice core CO2 PPM data.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Each molecule of CO2 comprises of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. Plants ingest CO2, strip out the carbon that they need and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Does that sound like pollution to you?

                              CO2 is heavier than air, so it does not rise into the upper atmosphere and cause greenhouse problems that the Labor government and its Greens supporters would have us believe.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X