Advice to the teachers and the kiddies who are worried about CO2

Jo Nova on Tuesday. The Green Religion of Intolerance.

Something else. Solar panel toxic waste.

Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas that occurs in a barely measurable trace in the air we breathe.

It is the foundation of life on earth because it is the starting point for building all the chemicals in living matter.

The process that occurs in green plants called photosynthesis uses sunlight, CO2, water and some essential minerals to start the amazing production process that led from the first primitive single-celled organisms through the evolutionary pathway to every form of life on earth at present.

Over billions of years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere declined from almost 50% to modern times when it is around 0.04% and it is measured in parts per million. During the Little Ice Age before the Industrial Revolution the level was below 300 parts per million. It is now a little over 400 parts per million and increasing at the rate of 2 ppm each year.

The level fell below 200ppm during the last Ice Age (not the Little Ice Age) threatened life on earth. The increase in CO2 since then and especially after the industrial revolution has rescued life on earth from that precarious situation and satellite observations since 1980 show a remarkable greening of the planet.

Still the current level is far short of the optimum for most plants and the process of greening will continue as long as the supply of CO2 continues to improve.

There is some concern about what might happen when the level of CO2 doubles from the 300ppm in 1850. With 400ppm at present, increasing by 2ppm per annum we have a hundred years to plan.

So go back to school and learn some science!

PS. 0.4% CO2 corrected to .04%. The link in the post was only inserted to show the critical level in the Little Ice Age but there is a lot more valuable information there in a short and clear read. Highly recommended

From Forest Stylist in the comments. As most plants evolved with CO2 levels 1500ppm to 4000ppm, 400 ppm represents a starvation diet. Some of the increase in crop productivity thought to be due to genetic improvement may in fact be due to higher CO2 levels (which makes photosynthesis more efficient at a given humidity).

See also Chapter 13 in Climate Science: The Facts 2017 summarized in three posts last year including this one.

Jo Nova on bushfires, CO2 and other stuff.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Advice to the teachers and the kiddies who are worried about CO2

  1. Mak Siccar

    An excellent and succinct summary Rafe. Please distribute this widely beyond the bounds of this excellent blog.

  2. woolfe

    CO2 400 parts per 1,000,000 = 0.04%?

  3. struth

    Do you understand who our enemy is, Rafe?
    What there agenda is?
    How it is all based on western guilt?
    What a global socialist is and what the UN is about?

    You may as well sit around and light your farts as to argue with these obvious points.

  4. Chris M

    Thank you but think I’ll pass, a few errors and assumptions.

    “Over billions of years” like AGW, fairy tale for adults

    “CO2 in the atmosphere declined from almost 50%” It was never remotely close to that. Or maybe in Dreamtime.

    “There is some concern about what might happen when the level of CO2 doubles…. we have a hundred years to plan” Given the corrective mechanisms we don’t even know if it’s possible to double the current 0.4% level but primarily beneficial effects expected if it were to.

    The proper advice is if you need to worry then don’t do it too much and worry only about real problems.

  5. duncanm

    So go back to school and learn some science.

    School is part of the problem.

  6. nfw

    It has nothing to do with science and reality, it has everything to do with power and control.

  7. Tel

    woolfe is right, it’s 0.04%.

  8. mem

    There is some concern about what might happen when the level of CO2 doubles from the 300ppm in 1850. With 400ppm at present, increasing by 2ppm per annum we have a hundred years to plan.

    Think your article would be improved by deleting this para altogether as it confuses and complicates. Either that or re-write and re-position.

  9. Rex Mango

    If the AFL was a serious sporting body, they would have a CO2 Round that celebrates the life giving gas which allows us to play football on green grass. Perhaps the balls could be inflated with CO2 and could be sponsored by Wormald, or Soda Stream.

  10. Rafe Champion

    Chris the billions of years comes from Plimer in Climate Change the Facts 2017, the geaph shows 35% but I wont argue, well short of half.
    We are probably near peak CO2 with more nuclear power coming on and modern coal-fired plants replacing the old, pity for the plants though.

  11. LOLz. Scientific arguments being used to counter political events.
    I’m sure lots of teachers will risk their jobs and start preaching the benefits of CO2. /sarc

    There are literally millions of physicists, geologists, meteorologists and greenhouse keepers who are not speaking out against the unscientific claims of the UN and its bastard child the IPCC. The only ones speaking out number about 2 ppm (persons per million) or 0.04%

    Look, people are already sceptical, especially those with conservative/right leanings but nobody says much (“hey it’s about Mother Nature, we can’t speak against her”) until their pockets are hit. IT’S THE MONEY. It’s always the money.
    Even at the endless COP meetings at such places as Bali, Copenhagen and Paris, the only disagreements have been about THE MONEY.
    So those who have the time and inclination to fight this scam, pull your resources together and expose those who make money off of this scam. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    Once people become sceptical, they will be less inclined to pay attention to “The Science” and will focus more on the cost of this scam.
    Expose the Turnbulls of this World. The John Hewsons, the insurance companies, the Flim Flanneries, the Lords who make millions from windmills on their properties, the WWF who made millions out of Amazon Forest deals, Greenpeace and all the other sundry carpetbaggers and hangers on who are making money from the scam.
    EXPOSE THOSE WHO MAKE THE MONEY.

    p.s. Teenagers are the most sceptical about the adults activities. Once they find out adults are making money out of this scam, they will be the hard-core sceptics. Win the teenagers to have a chance of winning this war.

  12. a happy little debunker

    Some catastropharians, it seems – are gifted with a Greta ability to see CO2 with the naked eye!

  13. Leo G

    So go back to school and learn some science.

    “School science” teaches that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect.
    But it ain’t necessarily so.
    An inconvenient truth is that to contribute to greenhouse effect heating a gas must not only absorb infra red energy but also the mode of absorption must cause an increase in the kinetic energy of the gas molecules. Carbon dioxide molecules absorp nfra red quanta in modes that increase internal energy but not molecular kinetic energy, nor are those non-thermal enery modes in equilibrium with other thermal modes.
    My long-standing question remains unanswered. How does carbon dioxide contribute to greenhouse warming?

  14. Rafe Champion

    Leo I think you have got the physics right because many other people who have done the yard yards in that field say much the same thing. It is not my field and it is also an argument that we can’t win in the public square. Not wrong but not the weapon for public debate.

  15. Fred Furkenburger

    400 PPM breaks down to about 1 molecule in every 2,500 atmospheric molecules. How much energy would that 1 molecule have to absorb in order to have any discernable effect on the other 2,499? I would suspect far more than is available.

  16. Fred Furkenburger

    Christopher Monckton on a new Irish study which shows the greenhouse gas effect cannot cause global warming:

  17. Rex Mango

    After >30 years of villification it is time for CO2 to have it’s image rehabilitated with perhaps an International CO2 Day, where people learn more about this wonderful molecule.

  18. Rebel with cause

    There was a full page advertisement in The Australian last week by a company called “Sendle” banging on about how their carbon emissions are fully offset and depicting a Koala in a breathing apparatus – the implication being that carbon dioxide is a noxious gas. False and misleading advertising.

  19. Rafe Champion

    From the link in the post.

    Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.

    There’s little danger to humans of too much CO2 in the air they breathe. Even the Environmental Protection Agency says 1000 ppm is the safe limit for lifetime human exposure. Space shuttle CO2 alarms are set at 5,000 ppm, and the alarm in nuclear submarines is set at 8,000 ppm!

  20. Trace amounts matter

    Cool. Try taking 0.04% of your body weight in cyanide and see what happens. Guess what? ‘Trace amounts’ of a highly reactive chemical can have a really significant impact in any system. Carbon dioxide is highly reactive in our atmosphere and causes heat to become trapped. So yeah, we do need to worry.

  21. Rex Mango

    Perhaps it might help if we rebranded CO2 as say O2C and called it Bioxygen Carbonate.

  22. pbw

    4,000 ppm = 4 parts per thousand = 0.4 parts per hundred = 0.4%. Rafe, your 50% leapt out at me. Were you talking about 5,000 ppm? 5,000 ppm is 0.5%.

    I recall Bob Carter talking about paleoclimatic CO2 levels being up to 17 times the recent levels (presumably 17 times 360 ppm. There seems to be a great variation in these quoted figures.

  23. Rafe Champion

    Thanks pbw, I will be careful about prehistoric levels of CO2 in future, the 35% comes from figure 20.1 in Ian Plimer’s paper in Climate Change: The Facts 2017. He provided a source.

    I do want to be sure that the earth has experienced periods that were warmer without killing all the living things and also that there have been periods of higher CO2 that were not warmer, to demonstrate that warming is not lethal and CO2 is not a driver of warming.

  24. TheSemiMentalBloke

    I think we should ban Chicken Carbonara because of climate change.

  25. Tintarella di Luna

    I think we should ban Chicken Carbonara because of climate change.

    Oh no you don’t why can’t it be pineapple pizza that’s banned instead?

  26. TheSemiMentalBloke

    Is there carbon in pineapple pizza?

  27. Tintarella di Luna

    There is if you leave it in too long

  28. mem

    I’d like to see a visual presentation in pamphlet form and online:
    title: Mummy where have all the eagles gone?
    Photos of dead birds in blades and on ground
    Amount of land taken up by coal mines v/s amount of land taken by wind and solar farms to supply same amount of electricity using maps
    Photos of devastation of landscapes before and after wind farms
    Graph showing cost increases in electricity since renewables introduced
    Figures on premature deaths due to fuel poverty
    Bags of money provided in subsidies with list of types of people and bodies profiting
    Graph showing how much the temperature has decreased resulting from this investment (?) could be fun
    Piles of wind turbine blades and solar panels (How will we dispose of these things)
    A list of all the predictions made that have not eventuated
    More dead bird photos

    You can save our environment and our birds by asking big questions. Don’t be like Greta Thundberg and be used to help line the pockets of financiers at the expense of our natural habitat.

  29. The Beer Whisperer

    I can’t wait until some idiot comes out and says “there are no safe levels of CO2” 😁

    Surely it’s only a matter of time. 🍿

  30. dover_beach

    This is an emergency! We must panic!

  31. Carbon dioxide is highly reactive in our atmosphere …

    Bullsh1t.

  32. from http://carbon.atomistry.com/decomposition_carbon_dioxide.html

    Carbon-dioxide gas is very stable, and requires a high temperature for its decomposition. The thermal dissociation of this gas was first investigated by St. Claire-Deville, who passed a rapid stream of it through a porcelain tube heated to about 1300° C …

  33. Mark M

    Imagine a world where students stopped striking, and learnt that while we were pretending the poles would be ice free, Mawson’s hut got covered in ice …

    Century-old artefacts revealed as Mawson’s Hut cleared of snow and ice

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/mawson-hut-dug-out-of-snow/7118184

    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/2016-2020/issue-30-june-2016/history/century-old-artefacts-uncovered-at-mawsons-huts

  34. Mark M

    CO2.
    A non-flammable, non-toxic gas as identified by the UN:

    Carbon Dioxide Hazchem UN2187 Sign H1567
    https://nationalsafetysigns.com.au/safety-signs/carbon-dioxide-hazchem-un2187-sign-h1567/

  35. Bazinga

    “We are probably near peak CO2 with more nuclear power coming on and modern coal-fired plants replacing the old, pity for the plants though.”

    Isn’t this almost a statement that humans cause significant CO2, not something I would agree without proof?

  36. Roger

    There was a full page advertisement in The Australian last week by a company called “Sendle” banging on about how their carbon emissions are fully offset and depicting a Koala in a breathing apparatus – the implication being that carbon dioxide is a noxious gas. False and misleading advertising.

    Repeat a lie often enough…

  37. Diogenes

    THE MONEY. It’s always the money.

    Seeing that this mentions teachers, the same advice can be given for educational reform. It is always about the money

  38. Mark M

    Climate change is the most critical issue facing humanity.
    Our children, & future generations, face a grim future unless action is taken to reduce carbon emissions now.
    NSWTF proudly supports the planned actions of @StrikeClimate on September 20.
    Maurie Mulheron
    President
    https://twitter.com/TeachersFed/status/1171908034882236416

    Science?

  39. Jim Hutchison

    Rafe Champion

    #3156756, posted on September 16, 2019 at 11:41 am
    Thanks pbw, I will be careful about prehistoric levels of CO2 in future, the 35% comes from figure 20.1 in Ian Plimer’s paper in Climate Change: The Facts 2017. He provided a source.

    • 35% is way too high. A 400 mill yr scale for Age of Earth graphed against C02 (ppm) published by Gavin L. Foster, Dana L. Royer & Daniel J. Lunt (2017) peaks just below 2,000 ppm i.e. just less than 0.2 %.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/1

    I am a staunch admirer of Plimer but I do take care when using his material; however here is no doubt that his grasp of the ‘big picture’ is correct.

  40. Bruce of Newcastle

    So yeah, we do need to worry.

    Your breath contains about 1% CO2 yet you don’t die horribly.

    CO2 does basically nothing significant to global climate. That is the real world data. Almost all the global temperature changes prior to 20 years ago were due to solar modulation of cloud cover and to the thermohaline cycle in the oceans. That’s why global temperature has plateaued in these last two decades, because those forcings have plateaued.

  41. Tim Neilson

    I am a staunch admirer of Plimer but I do take care when using his material;

    Fair comment but I’d take even more care when using material from Nature. True, its “climate science” record isn’t as risible as Science’s, but that’s no reason to assume that anything in Nature is necessarily accurate.

  42. Rafe, where you say the ‘Little Ice Age’ you mean the ‘last Ice Age’. Check the link.

  43. Trace amounts matter
    #3156734, posted on September 16, 2019 at 10:52 am

    Cool. Try taking 0.04% of your body weight in cyanide and see what happens. Guess what? ‘Trace amounts’ of a highly reactive chemical can have a really significant impact in any system. Carbon dioxide is highly reactive in our atmosphere and causes heat to become trapped. So yeah, we do need to worry.

    A gas cannot trap heat. Gasses expand and rise when heated. Even steam rises when heated. Ever watch a boiling kettle? Ever look at the top of a hot cup of coffee/tea?
    CO2 was the original refrigerant used in freezers in the early 20th C. How did those refrigerators work if CO2 traps heat?
    CFCs and HCFCs are used as refrigerants today. The UN IPCC scamsters tell us these chemicals are even more powerful heat trappers than CO2.
    Ever shake a spray can?
    How come it gets cold when shaken if it traps heat?
    Shouldn’t it get warmer instead if it’s a heat trapper?

    What you need to worry about is your abject ignorance and lack of depth in your thought processes.
    It’s because of morons like you that this scam has lasted so long.
    Thanks a lot moron.

  44. I_am_not_a_robot

    @ Trace amounts matter:

    Try taking 0.04% of your body weight in cyanide and see what happens …

    As atmospheric concentration increases the greenhouse effect of CO2 decays logarithmically, that’s the science.

    Carbon dioxide is highly reactive in our atmosphere and causes heat to become trapped …

    The greenhouse effects or ‘reactive’ LW spectra of CO2 and water vapour overlap,
    water vapour is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
    The atmospheric CO2 concentration has been much higher in the planet’s history and is essential for life.

  45. Cardimona

    I managed to get various versions of this letter printed back in February 2017…

    The Editor

    As expected, a normal summer hot spell has the global-warming/climate-change alarmists theatrically claiming its “extreme weather” and to be very, very afraid.

    Forty years of failed prophecies and we’re supposed to be converted to their faith because it’s summer? Spare us!

    CO2 is still the devil, of course, the faithful believe it traps heat during the day and propels it groundwards at night.

    There’s just one molecule of CO2 amongst each 2500 air molecules. For perspective there’s around 2500 concrete blocks in a big, new house – just one of those blocks represents CO2.

    That CO2-block allegedly captures more heat during the day than all the very similar blocks around it and then uses it to heat the whole house at night. Yeah, right!

    The physics just don’t work – see the Ideal Gas Law and the Second Law of Thermodynamics for a fuller explanation.

    (143 words)

    This is what I call recreational retail relaxivism; translate the technical points into the simplest possible words, add some Alinskyesque ridicule, and post it somewhere that ordinary punters can see it.

  46. Stewart Cowan

    “So go back to school and learn some science.”

    Or, rather, stay at home and do your own research. You yourself believe that we are descended from ancient single-celled organisms. Sensible scientists who avail themselves of the latest research know that the theory of evolution is impossible.

    There is no such thing as a simple cell; they are staggeringly complex and the odds against life forming from non-life without intelligent direction have been compared to the chance of finding one particular atom in the entire universe.

    I recommend reading “Evolution Impossible”. https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Evolution-Impossible-by-John-F-Ashton-Warren-Grubb-foreword/9780890516812

    I’m reading it again and every time I do, it becomes more obvious how daft evolution theory is. Darwin wasn’t even a proper scientist – all he did was to extrapolate wildly from observable small changes over time, which is a very unscientific process.

    Organisms contain systems within them which preserves the integrity of the species. The fictional ‘first self-replicating molecule’ would have to have been so complex that it couldn’t have happened by chance. Amino acids are far more readily destroyed by the energy which makes them. Etc., etc.

    This might seem like an O/T comment, but rotten science keeps breeding rotten science and so we end up with the fictions around climate change, ‘public health’, etc. He who pays for the ‘research’ gets to make up the results in advance for political or financial purposes.

  47. ArthurB

    Somehow I was put onto the mailing list for http://www.change.org, which organises petitions for worthy causes, such as begging the government to bend the rules for failed asylum seekers (i.e. queue-jumpers and economic migrants). I had an email this morning, asking me to sign a petition about climate change, organised by a lady who is a grazier from Longreach, and a member of “Farmers For Climate Action”. She says breathlessly “Climate change has already warmed the planet one degree and makes droughts like our current one longer and hotter”, also that “For farmers, climate change is here now”.

    I have no doubts about the lady’s sincerity, but lots of doubts about what she advocates. I fear, though, that she is like so many others, she doesn’t use logic, and ignores the fact that what Oz does will not make any measurable difference to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which, anyway, doesn’t cause global warming).

  48. Forest Stylist

    As most plants evolved with CO2 levels 1500ppm to 4000ppm, 400 ppm represents a starvation diet.
    Some of the increase in crop productivity thought to be due to genetic improvement may in fact be due to higher CO2 levels (which makes photosynthesis more efficient at a given humidity).
    Increases in CO2 levels will be buffered in part by increased plant uptake – this is already seen in the northern hemisphere summer where atmospheric CO2 levels dip due to extensive forest sequestration .
    These huge areas of high latitude forest also increase in yield because the night time minimum temperatures are increasing.
    Increased CO2 is good for the planet.

  49. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, my memory failed me. CO2 is 4 to 5% in your breath.

  50. Leo G

    Trace amounts’ of a highly reactive chemical can have a really significant impact in any system. Carbon dioxide is highly reactive in our atmosphere and causes heat to become trapped.

    Carbon dioxide is not toxic at concentrations at which it could be regarded as a trace gas in the atmosphere.
    If carbon dioxide is so highly reactive in the atmosphere, why does it persist so long?
    The carbon dioxide theory of global warming posits that the gas causes the release of thermal energy in the atmosphere, not that it “traps” that energy.

  51. mem

    They say road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take this latest example of emotional fervor trumping practicality in a save the tigers campaign. 86 of the 147 tigers that were “rescued” have already died. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/tigers-die-after-thai-temple-rescue/news-story/69ed8a5166b95bdef59ecae9732bf4ff
    This was totally predictable. Any animal bred in captivity or separate environment will be at heightened risk of catching disease if transferred into another. Let alone surviving the trauma of being removed from its home and being plonked somewhere else. Even humans have to be inoculated in order to survive diseases in a different environment. What were these people thinking! And no it wasn’t inbreeding. It was the stupidity of the authorities bowing to greens pressure without doing their due diligence. It is the same here with the wind turbines and renewable energy . It’s all emotional glory and politics without thought of the processes and consequences.

  52. classical_hero

    Don’t feed the troll. The fact that he compared carbon dioxide to cyanide is a complete and utter joke.

  53. Terry

    ArthurB
    #3156940, posted on September 16, 2019 at 4:15 pm
    “I have no doubts about the lady’s sincerity”

    Sincerely stupid is still stupid.

    It’s still a fail. Sorry – not sorry.

  54. Dr Fred Lenin

    The sun used to control the earths weather now the unelected comrades at the Untidy Nayshins in Noo York does . Tge agenda is to de industialise the West and reduce the standards of living ,while industrialising China and India and raising their peopkes standard of living to higher that the West,that will be revenge for colonialism simple plan but then socialists are basically simple ,dangerous but simple like redback spiders , and every bit as nasty .

  55. Howard Hill

    struth
    #3156607, posted on September 16, 2019 at 8:33 am

    Do you understand who our enemy is, Rafe?
    What there agenda is?
    How it is all based on western guilt?
    What a global socialist is and what the UN is about?

    They’re all members of the local mothers club. They all get together and talk nothing but crap about all the problems facing society, sometimes they even write it up in the local neighbourhood watch newsletter. They’re just glad they have something to talk about that makes them feel important. They’re either totally ignorant or controlled opposition. Seeing as I never read anything worthwhile on how to end this madness, I’m guessing the latter.

  56. Stewart Cowan

    Arthur B –

    I sincerely suspect that change.org, Avaaz, 38 Degrees and other petition sites are watermelon fronts, like a lot of the ‘foundations’ (Rockefeller, Ford, Gates’, Clintons, etc.).

    Sometimes a genuine petition such as one asking the Saudis not to execute another few dozen people will appear, presumably to give these sites credulity to non-watermelons. Otherwise, they tend to focus on blaming everything on the ‘rich’ (anti-capitalism), indulging in climate fanaticism, diversity, fake human rights, e.g. “women’s ‘health” is a euphemism for abortion and birth control.

    At the end of the day, it’s about population control (and control generally). They seem to want to cover half the world in trees, but not for food to feed the hungry billions. No, I rather think that they want them dead and climate change will get the blame for their starvation while agricultural land is used to grow trees and biofuel crops, more maritime reserves are set aside to accommodate billions of non-endangered birds that eat fish that people could be eating instead, etc.

  57. Texas Jack

    Then there’s sulphur hexafluoride coming out of all that new grid infrastructure linked up to those turbines.

  58. Bruce of Newcastle

    And NF3.

    The solar panel toxic waste problem (15 Sep)

    Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts.

    Of course seeing that CO2 is negated by the water cycle so too NF3 and SF6. But the people manufacturing solar panels think greenhouse gases are poison, so using NF3 is very naughty of them. Hypocritical even. Greens would never be hypocrites would they?

  59. Found another one BoN

    Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide and is widely used to make wind turbines, solar panels and the switching gear needed to run more complex electricity systems.
    Research has shown leakage of the little known gas across Europe in 2017 was the emissions equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.

    The warming potential of SF6 was identified in 2008 by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which said what had been hailed as an environmental success story could turn out to be a public relations disaster for solar.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/politicians-are-going-cold-on-climate/news-story/6140d2000e14e072dec860deb53bfcc7

  60. mem

    This new book looks like it might be ideal for educating children as well as adults on the flaws in alarmist science and the devastating impact of adopting promoted green solutions.
    https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/15/american-schoolteacher-researches-warns-green-new-deal-is-a-nasty-lesson-wed-be-wise-to-avoid/
    “Lynne Balzer’s new book The Green New Deal And Climate Change – What You Need To Know explains how the climate science that’s driving the radical policy initiatives is flawed, fraught with outright scientific fraud and how all the proposed green initiatives are in fact anti-green because they would end up irreversibly ravaging our environment.

    50 years of wrong predictions

    This book details the 50-year history of climate change alarmism that began in the 1970’s with its dire warnings about global cooling caused by mankind and how that term changed first to “global warming” and then to “climate change” when the warming stopped.

    None of the predictions, ten-year survival warnings or tipping points given during the past five decades has ever materialized.

    Ms. Balzer, a schoolteacher from America’s heartland, presents compelling reasons why wind turbines, solar power and biofuels are not only impractical but would actually greatly damage the environment. The book exposes the serious flaws in the science behind the entire manmade global warming scenario and the scientific impossibility that carbon dioxide, a trace gas, could be responsible for warming the planet.

    Balzer explains how prominent climate scientists have been hiding data and attempting to destroy other scientists who disagreed with their claims.”

  61. Rafe Champion

    Looks good mem, I have ordered two copies!

  62. Old School Conservative

    Sitting here in the freezing cold and driving rain on sunny Sydney’s glorious northern beaches. Reports of snow in the Blue Mountains, Goulburn and the ranges around Canberra.
    Keen to watch The Project tonight to see their interpretation of today’s weather!
    Also longing for an Australian politician to launch legal action against climate alarmists who have caused misery, economic ruin, and death.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.