ball-and-stick model of CO2: carbon dioxide

ball-and-stick model of CO2: carbon dioxide (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A Work in Progress: Any reader perusing this theme, please remember it is not finalised.

I am now trying to get some order into this theme. Already notated as a Work in Progress, there is much to be done.

Pity really, I had hoped that by now the world would have woken up to the real picture, and my contribution would be unnecessary. But no, the politicians are still hell-bent on destroying our social structures to suit their ambitions, based on lies! Seems to be the way of the ungodly in several areas. (Added 21 Sept 11).[Still true 5th May 2012]

Title change 28 Oct 2012


As far as I am concerned the world’s pre-occupation with ‘global warming‘, CO2 as a significant contributor, associated financial schemes and interference in sovereign rights of countries is misguided, fraudulent, probably unconstitutional, based on unacceptable ‘science’ and should not have been permitted to develop and operate.

Pollution control?  Yes ok, but the pollution has to be identified scientifically and specifically dealt with.

Increasing Global Average Temperature? Needs to be established as a scientific, statistical reality and the degree and potential negative effects agreed by a REAL CONSENSUS.

IF it can be proven that there is a statistically meaningful continuing rise in the temperature then it must be agreed  that the rise is of significance and detrimental. Then and only then, need we establish that the cause(s) are due to our way of life, and if so, assess the possible procedures to address the established problem.

Currently, none of these criteria are being satisfactorily addressed.

My aim is to expose the flaws in the generally accepted understanding of the whole scenario. There are thousands of  sensible, competent, aware people who have the same outlook as I.  And a lot of CAGW supporters who consider the likes of myself as low life and loonies. However, a lot of available documentary evidence is available to prove my hypothesis, if you look in the right place.

We have to look for it because the so-called climate science is agenda-driven and corrupt and the mainstream media (MSM) is caught up in the web of deceipt and won’t offer it.  Even sources like Wikipedia and Google search are demonstrably prejudiced.

If changes are desirable, they must be practical, cost-effective and have a positive result. The current situation is far from these ideals. The proposed changes are neither practical, affordable or effective. In fact they reek of fraud and corruption and should be abandoned immediately.

Well, I did say ideally. But to accept blindly what is going on is an insult to the average person’s intelligence.

Perhaps I if slip in a recent extract, just to get the feel for the situation:

{From a practicising scientist who has seen both sides of the issue}

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

The politics:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks. It is built on an assumption that is false.

The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

(The whole article is covered in my post“alarmist”-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-in-false-science/)

A second insertion into the main thread, a page I have named “An educational primer”. This is a direct copy of a post but broken into separate pages for easier navigation. Sincere acknowledgements to  ‘The Middlebury Community Network’, ref: 

It is a self-contained, detailed, understandable overview of the whole AGW picture. Very comprehensive and enlightening.

On the other hand: puts the pro-AGW science case, sufficient to convince the rest of the world. Food for thought and further discussion.

Back to my own offering:

The first aim is to reveal to you the initial birth of this scheme and make clear its motives.  See ‘Motivation’

Related articles:

So much more has now been added. Still in progress, but much information hopefully in a readable form. I think the hardest part of navigating through these pages is to get the cursor to make the right responses. So moving the cursor over and down/up the displayed page titles, all associated with the ‘carbon attack’ theme, and clicking, will get you to the individual page.

PLEASE let me know your thoughts on all this. The information AND the format.  (Updated 21 Sept 11).

An additional post adding to the skeptic’s reasons for being skeptical:

Facts and lies about the climate (1)  []  (Added 4th May 2012).

On consensus – (added 4th June 2012)

The evidence is vast and convincing to any academic intelligence.  (Added 31st July 2017)

Related articles:

Russian Forecast is very different  Lots of stuff here.

4 Responses to AGW

  1. Pingback: Actual Temperatures conflict with “Global Warming” | The GOLDEN RULE

  2. Kathy says:

    Im going to guess at 6 dollars.But if you antlped it yourself.. 0. Get a seed, plant it and off you go (I have an 8 year old horse chestnut tree and 7, 2 year old mixture of horse chestnut and oak) growing in tubs.[]

    • Florencio says:

      So all the scientists that have spekon out against global warming are automatically treated as puppets for the oil companies? Good try at using guilt by association; I take it you have a source that documents how all scientists opposed to global warming are receiving funding from big oil?If I am so uninformed, what scientific literature should I be reading? Which parties exactly have a vested interest in the truth?And I guess all these are just full of it?Should I believe something like this written by a professor of natural resources with a Ph.D. in ecological climatology and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists?

  3. Pingback: The Great Global Warming Hoax? | The GOLDEN RULE

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s