Showing posts with label evil greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evil greens. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 November 2021

Enemies of humankind and life itself

From: http://www.co2science.org/ ... yet another site on Natural Climate Change that is worth bookmarking, IMHO.
SOQ
"CO2, a tiny but essential component of the atmosphere, wields nowhere near the climatic power often ascribed to it. As presently constituted, earth's atmosphere contains only 370 parts per million (ppm) of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide. That's just a little over three-and-a-half one-hundredth of one percent, i.e., 0.037%. Even if its concentration were tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over a tenth of a percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth's atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, and as illogical as it would seem (and truly is!), a mere doubling of this minuscule amount of CO2 is perennially predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, ravaged natural ecosystems and dramatic increases in extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes."
and
"In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life, comprising the major "food" of nearly all plants on earth. With more CO2 in the air, literally thousands of experiments have proven, beyond any doubt, that plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and they do it more efficiently, with respect to the availability of important natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of various environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals that depend upon them for their sustenance, including us humans. Without question, therefore, CO2 is the elixir of life, the rock-bottom foundation of nearly all that lives on the planet, be it in the ground, in the oceans, or in the air."
EOQ
So, why would the evil greens and loonie lefts be seeking to artificially control and reduce the amounts of such a valuable substance that provably can bring so much increase and wealth of food to the planet ? The short answer is THEY HATE PEOPLE, especially people able to easily support themselves and subsist outside their control, rule, and care, and especially people who are aligned with conservative Judeo-Christian mores and moralities. They want a planet with far less people and of those who remain, they want them to be unencombered by traditional christian attitudes and views. I'm sure they will get their repeat of the bloody French revolution on a global scale before too much longer. Maybe even punctuated with a reintroduction of that famed bladed instrument for those who dare to stand in their willfully ignorant way. ;) After all, blood letting soon follows on from such people hating mentalities once their arguments are shown to be nought but lies, fraud, and hot air. Considering the typical human condition, it is only natural ... regarDS

To the Federal Leader of the Opposition

A letter I just sent via links available here: http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/ and http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/ContactMalcolm/tabid/87/Default.aspx and http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/contact.asp and http://www.nationalswa.com/contact.aspx and http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=SJ4 (The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP's website) and no doubt more to follow. The version I sent to Dr Jensen was prefixed with:
"Dear Dr Jensen. Sorry to read what has just happened to you re: pre-selection, particularly considering your views regarding AGW Alarmism. I do hope you continue with the good fight in that regard, either with the Liberal Party or as an Independent. I submitted the following note to the Liberal Party webpage and Malcolm Turnbull's webpage this morning because I am very much concerned by the direction that the Coalition seems to be going in relation to the typical AGW alarmist position and the Rudd & Wong "ETS". Also, because of Mr Turnbull's stance and recent decisions I find that I can no longer speak of the Liberal Party in good terms while he remains its leader and in support of any kind of ETS. Letter is as follows, and thank you for your time:"
To the Federal Leader of the Opposition. In every election over the last 27 years I have voted for either the Liberal party or the Coalition, either directly or via preferences but mostly the former. I will be unable to continue this trend in the next election should the Liberal party continue in anyway to support the alarmist nonsense and fraud that is "man made climate change", CO2 being "a pollution", and any kind of "Emissions Trading Scheme" related to CO2. Instead, I will be supporting candidates who demonstrate climate change realism, which at the moment seems to only be the Family First party. Yes, the climate is changing, it has always changed, and it continues to change, and atmospheric CO2 levels always lag behind global temperature changes and not lead them ... and regardless of mankind's pitiful contributions to the same. Besides, when it comes to atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet is virtually starving for the stuff anyway, and would benefit by actually being doubled or more. Make no mistake. If the blogs and forums are anything to go by, there are a lot of longstanding typical coalition supporters out there who will be casting their votes elsewhere unless the Liberal party soon chooses to admit to the folly of AGW ("manmade global warming) and associated fraud of an ETS, and instead adopt a unified Climate Change Realist position that is contrary to the kind of disaster the ALP (let alone The Greens) are trying to inflict upon Australia. Also, don't under estimate the power of "the internut" in terms of reaching people and shaping public opinion. At the moment, it would appear that KRudd and Co are continuing to use it far more effectively that the Coalition. Personally, I think you will find that if you decisively establish policy that not only opposes the ALP's "ETS" but also rigourously demands answers to the kinds of questions Senator Fielding recently asked on the topic, and made it all very public, then the Australian Public would overwhealmingly support your party. The average voting age Ozzie can sniff out BS from 50 paces and most of us probably know by now that there is something distinctly fishy about the whole AGW Alarmist thing and that to implement an ETS would be to put the country and economy through a hiding for nothing, so with that in mind it would be quite foolish to do a "me too" to what Rudd and Wong want to inflict upon us. As a blogger and prolific forum participant I will be continuing to warn against AGW Alarmism and an ETS, and similarly will be denouncing any and all political parties who support those scams. In fact, this very letter is also about to be posted to my own blog and a highly google referenced forum, and I will also be supplying it by way of comment to the PM's new blog on the topic of climate change. I firmly believe that how your party chooses to approach the (Natural) Climate Change topic will directly affect your chances at the next election. To merely support or echo the ALP postion will render you irrelevant, but should you choose to take a stand against the Alarmist hysteria and nonsense, you could not only be returned to Government but also save Australia from ruin. Thank you for your time. regarDS (name included)

Friday, 14 August 2009

Can you hear me Penny Wong ?

I thought I better resist the urge to launch into yet another massive/longwinded post on the topic of AGW Alarmism.

So I'll launch into a song instead. Heh.



Lyrics (as found in the comments section at http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/
by "Perturbed") as follows:


EARTH ODDITY. (Apologies to David Bowie)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Put your special hat that's made of tinfoil on.

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Legislation spin switch on
Check your factoids and may Al Gore be with you

(Countdown from 10 - 1, then Liftoff!")

This is Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong,
Weve really made the grade!
And weve sidelined that weird singer with no hair
Now lets push the ETS through if we dare

This is Penny Wong to Kevin Rudd
My hearts gone through the floor
For theyre voting in a most peculiar way
And the outcomes looking miserable today!

For here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Trying to save the world
The ETS we blew and there's nothing we can do.

Though we've made three hundred billion debt
We could do better still
But the stupid Senate told us where to go
(To a double dissolution, dont you know?)

Kevin Rudd to Penny Wong
Our Climate Change crusades gone wrong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you hear me, Penny Wong
Can you

Here we are with our hats of tinfoil
Baying at the moon
The ETS we blew and theres nothing we can do


Anyway, to participate in the debate, join up at: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673

regarDS

Thursday, 13 August 2009

A minor win in the war on stupidity and fraud that is AGW Alarmism and ETS.

On the 13th of August, 2009, a minor skirmish in the war on gross stupidity and outright fraud was won when the PRO-Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Government had its CO2 indulgence scheme ala "CPRS" voted down.

Featured below is a speech from one of the voices of reason who voted against the Government's ruinous plans for Australia. Please note that all paragraph breaks and bold (etc) emphasis, have been added by yours truly. The speech in its original form was not provided with paragraph breaks so I've had to guess where they may have been.

To see it in its original format, visit: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

Tuesday, 11 August 2009
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
Tuesday, 11
August 2009 THE SENATE 1
CHAMBER SPEECH
Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Source Senate
Page 70 Proof Yes
Questioner Responder
Speaker
Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it.
This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.

The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise. This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.
Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions. It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference.

And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme. For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time.

Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation.

For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth. Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.
One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood. Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.

I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles.

One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche. Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.

To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted.

Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives. I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleage Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible.

The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy. Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community.

It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country.

As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June: ... an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2. Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.

Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it.

While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20- something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness — all for zero environmental gain.

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances. Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS.

As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year: The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming.

The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.
The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman - Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all.

On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Hear, hear.

regarDS

Thursday, 18 June 2009

The vindication of carbon means the vindication of human freedom.

If you've not realised yet, I'm a "Climate Realist". ie, I am of the reasonable and sensible view that the world's climate is changing, has always changed, and shall continue to change in the future. I certainly have not in any way, shape, or form, bought into the current nonsense that (a) CO2 is a pollutant and (b) human production of CO2 is driving global climate change.
Nor am I of the view that Real Science is decided by consensus - and just as well it isn't or we might never have found a cure for stomach ulcers.
I'm also of the view that on a global scale, our flora is somewhat starved for CO2 at the moment and could greatly benefit by an increase of at least 3fold to current levels. Which would be wonderful for providing so much more of the planet's population their daily bread !
Could it be that the desire to remove CO2 from our atmosphere is a desire to bring about population control via starvation ?
Anyway, I found the following at
which is the website of a new Oz political party dedicated to the truth getting out and the evil greenie loonie lefty religion of environmentalism being exposed for the fraud and enemy of humankind and the planet that it is.
The full link is:
all bolds and extra emphasis are mine and paragraph format is probably different from the original (all formating was lost in the cut and paste)
Start Of Quote

THE VINDICATION OF CARBON MEANS THE VINDICATION OF HUMAN FREEDOM
Robert D. Brinsmead

The evidence is piling up every day that the world is now getting cooler instead of warmer, the oceans are now cooling instead of warming, the ice is returning to the Arctic rather than receding, the sea ice in the Antarctic is at record levels, and that rising sea levels have moderated. The sun has recently gone into a less active phase of fewer sun-spots, and the ocean decadal currents have changed from a warming to a cooling phase.
Before too long the global warming scare will be as dead as the scares about the Y2 bug or acid rain. Already some of the global warming alarmists, anticipating this may soon happen, are reinventing their alarmism into the scare about the oceans becoming acidified by our CO2 emissions – even though the oceans already contains 90 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (Chilingar, et.al.)

Beyond all these things, however, we need to get to what this debate and this climate change alarmism is really all about.

Beyond all this alarmism about global warming or ocean acidification, we need to see that on a deeper level it is a debate about carbon, and when we dig into that level of the debate we will finally see that behind the demonization of carbon and CO2, it is all about an attack on humanity itself.

Global warming alarmism is not a science, but a religio/political movement. This paper will show why it a dangerous totalitarian ideology and a more serious threat to human freedom than Communism or Nazism. It is also like a bad joke, because carbon just happens to be the most wonderful of all the elements in the periodic table because of its ability to make so many organic compounds that are fundamental to the formation of life. Yet here is a movement that is all about demonizing carbon.

The Wonders of Carbon
Nearly every new product that human ingenuity has devised on the road of human progress is a carbon-based product. Steel, for instance, is made by blending carbon with iron. There would be no construction industry without carbon. Nearly every product in a modern house, including most of the surfaces, with the exception of the glass and the bricks, is a carbon-based product.
If our clothes are not made of natural fibers such as wool, cotton or silk (all of which are carbon-based), then they will be made from synthetic fibers, all of which are carbon based too. All plastics and polyethylene products are carbon-based materials. All the foods we produce and eat are carbon products - and that not only includes our carbo(n)hydrates, but all the fats and proteins in our food are made of carbon compounds too.
Not just the petrol and oil that run our autos, but the cars themselves, right down to their brake linings, are made of substances that would not exist without carbon. There could be no aviation or space industries apart from a whole plethora of carbon-based products.
There are ten million naturally occurring carbon compounds (more than all the other elements of the periodic table combined), and beyond these, man is finding that there are almost limitless
opportunities to come up with new products using carbon -from fantastic nanotubes composed of the toughest stuff known to making better tennis racquets. This never-ending variety of new products is all due to the amazing and unique features of the carbon molecule that is so adaptable and so flexible that there is no end to what new products might be made with it - from the hardest to the softest substances known.
Carbon is not just the fourth most common element in the universe, but through its millions of compounds it is as ubiquitous and as necessary to life as oxygen and water.
Carbon is the Basis of Life
This brings me to my main point. Human ingenuity, as I have pointed out, can make an astounding array of new products that are carbonbased, including products that play a vital role in taking man into space. But, for all that, we cannot make living things with carbon because we can't solve the mystery of replicating life. But when the time came for the good Lord (or Gaia or Lady Luck if you insist) to make a world of living things, whether amazing plants that live and reproduce, or animals that can live and reproduce, or the human brain that can actually think creatively, what do you suppose this life-generating power used?
Carbon, of course!
Any good biology text book will tell you that life is carbon-based. All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not a one of them that is not made of carbon.

Think of giant Cedars, Californian Redwoods and Tasmanian Mountain Ash - they are all made of carbon. Every blade of grass, every delicate orchid, every kind of fruit (there are ten thousand known varieties) is made of carbon. Think of all those tantalizing flavors in fantastic variety - juicy mangoes, buttery avocados and versatile limes, all filled with fruit sugars so varied and in such abundance - they are all made of a carbon/hydrogen combinations. Ordinary pure sugar is made up of ten atoms of carbon compounded with sixteen atoms of hydrogen. There are eight kinds of sugars essential to the human body and vital in cell to cell communication. Glucose, fructose, lactose and mannose are the more common ones. Sugar is fundamental to brain function. Every diabetic knows that.
When we turn to the animal kingdom, including mankind itself, we find too that leaping deer, frolicking seals, lumbering rhinos or thinking humans are all forms of animated carbon. In the human species we have thinking carbon through which the universe actually becomes conscious of itself. The human brain is the most complex and intricate piece of equipment in the universe. This is the organ of the human mind through which carbon not only becomes thinking carbon, but reaches the sublime heights of becoming caring, sharing, loving carbon.
So who is going to tell me that carbon is just some black old ugly stuff that deserves to be demonized as the world’s great pollutant?
Stand back, and let your mind take into this whole wondrous biosphere - the living earth - and what you are surveying is the awesome wonder that carbon has come alive in the great dance of life.

What is made of carbon must be fuelled by carbon. Now consider too that this great dance of living things is not just made of carbon, but it has to be fuelled by carbon. It needs to feed on carbon to grow and reproduce. Yet we have people who call themselves scientists or leaders of society who are so deluded with a disease called carbophobia (an irrational fear of carbon), that they label carbon a dangerous pollutant which has to be regulated and sequestered to the nether regions of the earth. For pity's sake, how can their carbon-thinking brains reach such anti-carbon conclusions?

This is not just madness; it is madness gone mad.
Mad science. Mad politicians. Mad anti-carbon activists on a mankind-hating, lifehating crusade of self destruction. In the entire history of civilization, no mass hysteria has ever come close to being such a monstrous threat to civilization at this!
Where do animals, including mankind, get their carbon-based fuel?

All animal food has to originate from plants, of course. Plants start this food chain by making carbo(n)hydrates for the animal kingdom. No plants = no food chain = no animals = no mankind. So where do the plants source their carbon so that they can make all this carbonbased food to sustain all creatures great and small?
The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colorless, odorless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2.

They used to teach these simple facts to primary school kids, but nowadays teachers who are way off with the environmental fairies are scaring the daylights out of our children with hobgoblin stories about the evils of CO2.

This insanity must stop. It's time to teach the kids again and to remind the adults of this world that CO2 is the primary plant food that ends up feeding them too. They need to be told again the simple fact that the leaves on a plants have stomata through which they absorb or breathe in C02, and by a process of photosynthesis, the plants turn this CO2 into carbo(n)hydrate food for animals and man.
They need reminding that more than 90% of the dry matter of plants is simply processed C02. Whether it is a cow eating the grass or humans eating the cow, all are eating -and being fuelled - by processed CO2.

CO2 is as natural and as necessary to life as water and oxygen. It is not a poison. It is not a pollutant. It feeds the whole world, Stupid!
Unless the soil gave off carbon emissions into the atmosphere, unless the sea (which contains 90 times the amount of CO2 than the atmosphere) gave off carbon emissions, unless the micro-organisms which comprise more than two-thirds of the world's biomass gave off their carbon emissions, unless the termites gave off their carbon emissions, unless cattle gave off their carbon emissions (their belching and flatulence actually give off more carbon emissions than the entire human transport system), and unless we as part of this tapestry of life gave off carbon emissions, then life could not go on for the simple reason that the plants would have no food by which to grow, and then no creature on earth would have anything to eat.
For life to go on, the carbon used to make all living things and to feed all living things, must be circulated back from whence it came to start the life-cycle all over again. Every form of life simply borrows the carbon by which it lives only to give it back again. We give some of it back when we breathe, we give some of it back in our bodily wastes and we give the last bit of it back when the shovel thumps the ground on top of us.

Demonizing Carbon is a Dangerous Nonsense.
In the light of all this, it is a sheer nonsense of the highest and most dangerous order to put forward the notion that carbon or carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is double nonsense to say that the carbon emissions of either humans or cattle is a threat to the earth anymore than the much more abundant carbon emissions of the soil microorganisms or the carbon emissions of the oceans that outdo our human carbon emissions in an order of magnitude many times to
one are a threat to the earth.

Be warned: this dangerous eco-Taliban wants to subject us to a carbon taxing, carbon regulating police state. It surely has to stand to reason that you can't regulate human carbon emissions without regulating every aspect of human existence - and that would be more totalitarian than anything the world has ever known. This is a religio/political ideology masquerading as science.
Their plans to decarbonize our footprint and to decarbonize our economy will reduce our civilization to a weakened and impoverished state of carbo-anorexia. Does that sound like a lot of fun?
People need to be told the plain truth that much higher carbon emissions and much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we see at present would mean more plant food, more plant growth and more food for man and animals to eat. Carbon is the greenest stuff on the planet.

I speak now as a horticulturist. Plant nursery operators know that CO2 enrichment of the air in the nursery house means that the plants grow quicker, have bigger roots and get by on less water.

Certainly every indoor tomato grower in New Zealand, Australia, Holland or anywhere for that matter knows that he can increase the yield of tomatoes 40% simply by increasing the CO2 content of the air by about 300%. What's good for plants is good for animals because animals and plants evolved together and share a common basis in life based on cells.
A great leap forward in world agricultural productivity took place in the 1920's when they learned to take nitrogen out of the air and put it into the soil where it could stimulate plant growth. Our highly populated world could not feed itself today without recourse to synthetic nitrogen. The second leap forward is staring us in the face. It is to take the carbon out of the earth and put it into the air where it can benefit plant life and so enhance food productivity. The technology has already been proven and demonstrated thousands of times. It is estimated that the agricultural industry today enjoys a 15% increase of food productivity due to the modest rise of atmospheric CO2 levels of the last 100 years from 280 ppm to 385 ppm.
More and more evidence accumulates that in an ideal world we would have 1000 to 1500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of a mere 385 ppm as we have now, or a 280 ppm that the carbophobics would take us back to if they have their way.
That level of CO2 happens to be only a tad higher than the point at which plants suffocate for lack of CO2. (See the Wikipedia article on CO2) 300% to 400% higher levels of CO2 will have no adverse impact on humans or animals.
In evolutionary history, the explosion of life-forms took place during the Cambrian Age when there were many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. Besides, humans work in indoor tomato-growing facilities and indoor offices where the CO2 levels are around 1,000 ppm.
As for world temperatures, more and more evidence piles up every day, especially over the last five years, that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have no catastrophic effect on climate.
In the theory of the global warming alarmists, CO2 has heat-trapping properties, meaning that the more CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, the warmer the world will become. There are some inconvenient facts, however, that destroy this theory:

(1) CO2 is only a small player when it comes to greenhouse gas, more than 90% of which is water vapour – and who gets paranoid about water vapour?
(2) The earth and her systems – including the very complex climate system – are robust, resilient and self-regulating. Apparently, they easily adjust to a bit more CO2 just as easily
as all the plants and animals do.

(3) The proof of any scientific theory is in observing and measuring what takes place in the real world irrespective of what computer modeling might indicate. Whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, world temperatures have begun a downward trend. If the current behavior of the sun with its diminished sun-spots and magnetic strength is any guide, and if the recent changes of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Currents are any guide, then this cooling trend will continue for a least another 20-30 years – all proving that C02 never was and never can be a primary driver of climate.

Carbophobia - the irrational fear of carbon - has become the disease of our age, the religious myth of our time and the apocalyptic delusion of this moment of history. It can be cured, however, with a good dose of common sense.
Why then worry about the size our carbon footprint? - the bigger the better if the aim is to green the earth and to feed the world. As for pollutants, let's direct our attention to the real pollutants in our environment like the sulphurs, the nitric oxides and real chemical pollutants. CO2 is not one of them. Before we get too morbidly obsessed about the size of our carbon footprint, it might help to remind ourselves that the termites and the micro-organisms have a very much larger carbon footprint than we do.
As for the oceans, their carbon emissions are so massive that they make human carbon emissions appear about as significant as some flatulence in a hurricane.
Carbon is good for you, good for every living thing, and good for the earth. So relax and enjoy your good portion of carbon under the sun, especially if it happens to be a carbonated cold one.
The fear of carbon is the fear of life. The love of carbon is the love of life. Humans are animated carbon. Everything we consume and emit is carbon-based. Everything we make or purchase causes carbon emissions.
It is not possible to control and regulate carbon without controlling and regulating every aspect of human existence. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-human freedom.
The war on carbon is an ill-disguised war on humanity, a war on human freedom. Carbon and carbon emissions are simply a proxy for human activity. This whole movement to demonize carbon is driven by a world-denying, man-hating worldview. It is time to rip away the mask and expose the movement whose real aim is to put the human race in chains to a system that controls every aspect of human existence.
It is time to stand up and say, “You take your jackboots off my carbon and off my life.”
It is heartening to see that more and more scientists are waking up to the junk science of man-made global warming alarmism and that they are are now coming out of the woodwork to say so. The movement to shut down our energy sources by a beat-up against CO2, if successful, would turn off the lights of civilization. It is fitting that the symbolism of the recent Earth Hour was darkness rather than light.

There has never been more than a small coterie of pseudo-science activists and social engineers driving this global warming alarmism cart. They have been remarkably successful in closing down the debate and silencing opposition by their big lie about their enjoying an overwhelming scientific consensus. They have intimidated a lot of scientists with the fear of losing academic funding if they should open their mouths with a contrary opinion.
As for the Media that refused to obey their own credo of rigorous investigative journalism, that ducked from asking the hard questions, that forgot they were supposed to be independent journalists instead of advocates for the popular hysteria, its integrity and credibility has been trashed by its own hand.
Long live the free spirits of the Internet, the indefatigable bloggers who would not be silenced.
*Robert D. Brinsmead is a Horticulturist and a free-lance Writer.
End of Quote
regarDS