Possibly the Best Thing You Will Ever Read on G****l W*****g
Nov 12, 2017 13:40:02 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
The István Markó Interview: Possibly the Best Thing You Will Ever Read on G****l W*****g. Pt 1: The Science.
By James Delingpole, BREITBART
Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the g****l w*****g scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of g****l w*****g.
Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English t***slation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not k**l anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.
During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes ??of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
Animals need CO2 too. And by the way – forests are not the ‘lungs of the earth’…
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated
It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
C*****e c****e is natural
Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.
Don’t worry about shrinking glaciers. We’ve been here before…
In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.
Sea level rise is normal
Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.
[1] The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as ‘sinking’ or as ‘sea level rise,’ but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.
The polar ice caps are fine too
Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.
E*****e w*****r events are actually decreasing
From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.
Recent warming is modest – much smaller than the alarmists’ various computer models predicted
If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest, that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures, for which there is no precision data[1], except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.
Claims by alarmist ‘experts’ that 2016 was that ‘hottest year ever’ are pure balderdash
The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (g****l w*****g) or -0.08°C (g****l c*****g). In short, we can’t say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.
No, ‘c*****e c****e’ hasn’t led to an increase in tropical diseases
Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on c*****e c****e comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of v******tions, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.
Again, CO2 is greening the planet. And that’s a good thing. So stop demonizing it!
Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.
By James Delingpole, BREITBART
Maybe the biggest of all the lies put out by the g****l w*****g scaremongers is that the science is on their side. No it isn’t. And if you’re in any doubt at all you should read this interview with the brilliant scientist István Markó. It tells you all you need to know about the science of g****l w*****g.
Dr. Markó, who sadly died earlier this year aged only 61, was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium’s largest French-speaking university. More importantly for the purposes of this interview, he was one of the world’s most outspoken and well-informed climate skeptics, who contributed to several articles on the subject for Breitbart News.
Before he died, he gave an extensive interview to the French journalist Grégoire Canlorbe. Here are highlights of the English t***slation. As you’ll see, he doesn’t pull his punches.
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not k**l anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There have been periods where the CO2 concentration was many times higher than now. Life thrived.
During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes ??of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.
Animals need CO2 too. And by the way – forests are not the ‘lungs of the earth’…
In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70 percent of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees. Contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.
It is not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. Reports of its influence have been exaggerated
It is worth remembering here too that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04 percent of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1. The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2 percent in the atmosphere. Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.
C*****e c****e is natural
Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.
Don’t worry about shrinking glaciers. We’ve been here before…
In Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.
Sea level rise is normal
Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99 percent of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[1] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.
[1] The island shores are eroded by the persistent pounding of the ocean waves. This is perceived as ‘sinking’ or as ‘sea level rise,’ but the upward creep of the waters is due to island soil being washed away.
The polar ice caps are fine too
Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years. One may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but, on average, that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Arctic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years and, similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and so on.
E*****e w*****r events are actually decreasing
From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world and, when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease.
Recent warming is modest – much smaller than the alarmists’ various computer models predicted
If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest, that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures, for which there is no precision data[1], except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.
Claims by alarmist ‘experts’ that 2016 was that ‘hottest year ever’ are pure balderdash
The World Meteorological Organization – another emanation of the United Nations and which is also, like the IPCC, an intergovernmental forum – declares 2016 the year the warmest of history. Knowing that 2016 is supposedly hotter by 0.02°C than 2015 and that the margin of error on this value is 0.1°C, we see the absurdity of this statement. For those who don’t understand, this means that the variation in temperature can be of + 0.12°C (g****l w*****g) or -0.08°C (g****l c*****g). In short, we can’t say anything and WMO has simply lost its mind.
No, ‘c*****e c****e’ hasn’t led to an increase in tropical diseases
Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on c*****e c****e comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of v******tions, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.
Again, CO2 is greening the planet. And that’s a good thing. So stop demonizing it!
Present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2 available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they, therefore, consume less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2level in the atmosphere makes plants need less water so they can afford to colonize arid regions.
Nov 12, 2017 13:57:36 #
If one correlates the pirate population with the so-called rise in temperatures, g****l w*****g, one will see that as the pirate population diminished, temperatures apparently rose.
Also, I like this guy. It's too bad he passed away.
--Bob
Also, I like this guy. It's too bad he passed away.
--Bob
Nov 12, 2017 13:58:33 #
Nov 12, 2017 14:36:45 #
Nov 12, 2017 14:56:19 #
Quaking Aspen wrote:
Total BS
Too right! Alternative energy is not waiting for anyone's approval. Technology and capitalism will increasingly make fossil exploration, extraction, refining and distribution a poor investment.
Nov 12, 2017 14:57:52 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
The István Markó Interview: Possibly the Best Thin... (show quote)
Obvioulsy one dude that doesn't know what he is talking about!
Nov 12, 2017 17:27:44 #
The trouble, is with the data....It wasn't until the later part of the 20th Century that people measured the temperature DURING THE NIGHT as well as during the day! Bang goes the mean temperature!
pre 1800's we rely upon the odd vicar's diaries for temperature measurements. Captain Fitzroy (Darwin's captain) created a crude meteorlogical society to track storms....it didn't catch on within his lifetime...so much for data. However, he did show how storms travel (Not why though).
Look at newspapers of the 1960's apparently we were going to experience a global freeze...We would all die!!!! because plants wouldn't grow if we moved underground, however when that didn't happen.....g****l w*****g became 'the new phenomena.' From GIA and the G****l W*****g ideas of the 1970's it became necessary for all funded research to include or pay lip service to 'the probable effects of g****l w*****g'. Unless you worked for the Oil Industries....then GW was a definite No No ....It was 'Probable effects' until governments cottoned on to the money that could be made with 'new technologies'. (Exactly how much are you paying for your eco lightbulbs that use tungsten instead of copper and last half the time)
Science is great....Scientists find what they look for.! Don't take my word for it.....lots of scientists will tell you this. If you cannot predict what you will find....Who is going to pay for the research.
Is GW real......Scientists are still argueing.....Governments are convinced....Never trust a Politician,,,
Yes I have a degree in Environmental Science and Geography (Chichester University 1998 - 2001. )
pre 1800's we rely upon the odd vicar's diaries for temperature measurements. Captain Fitzroy (Darwin's captain) created a crude meteorlogical society to track storms....it didn't catch on within his lifetime...so much for data. However, he did show how storms travel (Not why though).
Look at newspapers of the 1960's apparently we were going to experience a global freeze...We would all die!!!! because plants wouldn't grow if we moved underground, however when that didn't happen.....g****l w*****g became 'the new phenomena.' From GIA and the G****l W*****g ideas of the 1970's it became necessary for all funded research to include or pay lip service to 'the probable effects of g****l w*****g'. Unless you worked for the Oil Industries....then GW was a definite No No ....It was 'Probable effects' until governments cottoned on to the money that could be made with 'new technologies'. (Exactly how much are you paying for your eco lightbulbs that use tungsten instead of copper and last half the time)
Science is great....Scientists find what they look for.! Don't take my word for it.....lots of scientists will tell you this. If you cannot predict what you will find....Who is going to pay for the research.
Is GW real......Scientists are still argueing.....Governments are convinced....Never trust a Politician,,,
Yes I have a degree in Environmental Science and Geography (Chichester University 1998 - 2001. )
Nov 12, 2017 18:54:29 #
Complete uninformed BS. Just check the actual weather data from REAL sources such as weather bouys, historical records, satellite data, NOAA, etc. and you will find that the last 2 years are the hottest since we’ve been collecting data, sea level IS rising and the polar ice IS melting. Now whether this is completely due to man made causes or part of a natural cycle that we are helping to accelerate is a different question, but if you really don’t believe it’s occurring, then you are ignoring the facts and have your head in the sand. I know it’s comforting to believe this BS, but the actual data says otherwise, and if c*****e c****e deniers like you continue to influence environmental policy, then our children and grandchildren will be the victims of this stupidity. I would gladly provide links to real data (I helped design the NOAA CLASS system, which is the US repository and dissemination vehicle for weather data), if you would read it, but you won’t, or you’ll label it a global conspiracy (with tens of thousands participating), so a waste of time, and unlike you, I actually know the facts. You should become better informed and present actual scientific facts rather tha propagate this drivel - you do the entire world a disservice with this nonsense. Go to NOAA, read the REAL data, look at the satellite photos of the arctic and Antarctic, understand the yearly temperature and sea level graphs, and then come back and try to defend this absurdity, or better yet, become part of the solution instead of part of the problem...
Sorry for the rant, but this is akin to the flat world argument - born out of ignorance of the facts, and it isn’t just wrong-headed, it’s dangerous.
Sorry for the rant, but this is akin to the flat world argument - born out of ignorance of the facts, and it isn’t just wrong-headed, it’s dangerous.
Nov 12, 2017 19:42:15 #
Absolutely, g****l w*****g is too real. No one can argue against the real experts in the UN. There is no god but Government will save us.
Ken
Ken
Nov 12, 2017 21:42:12 #
TriX wrote:
Complete uninformed BS. Just check the actual weat... (show quote)
No a has been caught changing the info to suit the government BS. So you are full of BS!
Nov 12, 2017 23:25:47 #
The earth's climate will do what it will do regardless of what we attempt to do to change it. When I was young science said we were headed for a new ice age. Now it's the opposite. When the money settles it will still be wh**ever it was going to be anyway. Yes, I do have degree in science.
Nov 13, 2017 04:05:27 #
kpmac wrote:
The earth's climate will do what it will do regardless of what we attempt to do to change it. When I was young science said we were headed for a new ice age. Now it's the opposite. When the money settles it will still be wh**ever it was going to be anyway. Yes, I do have degree in science.
And you're what kind of scientist???
SS
Nov 13, 2017 06:10:11 #
Okay, so why are the glaciers melting away? Let’s not debate cause, the effect is the key issue for me.
Nov 13, 2017 06:41:07 #
Nov 13, 2017 07:39:37 #
gorgehiker
Loc: Lexington, Ky
Fear of c*****e c****e isn't the only reason to worry about pollution. I want to be able to breathe clean air. New Delhi doesn't have environmental regulations and United Airlines just announced that they won't even fly there due to poor air quality. Regardless of whether or not you accept the science regarding c*****e c****e, do you want to walk around wearing a mask to breathe?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.