Comments on ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY: TAKING CO2 SERIOUSLY

I wanted to make a point about the exhaled CO2 by ...

2007-12-22T02:13:00.000-05:00

I wanted to make a point about the exhaled CO2 by humans and others. Goes something like this:

a) Everything we eat comes ultimately from plants.
b) Plants get the carbon only from CO2 in the air.
c) Hence, all the CO2 we exhale comes only from the air.

Important to note the only source of CO2 is air. We don't get the carbon from the ground.

Anything I'm missing?

Since civilization, and particularly developing na...

2007-10-30T20:02:00.000-04:00

Since civilization, and particularly developing nations, will not, in any shape or form, significantly slow the growth of man-made CO2 emissions (no matter what the alarmists demand); then, I would guess that we are going to eventually see how these modelled climate projections pan out. 'Bout time, I'd say...I got money to wager on this..

This geologist would like to point out that the various (and uncertain) factors that have caused the glacial and interglacial climates that occurreed during the relatively recent past (Pleistocene Epoch), are completely overlooked by this "theory" and the associated, hokey models. These factors (and other, possibly more significant man-made forcings) somehow have ceased to be operative in the view of the non-scientist media, political ignoramuses, and greenie fools.

CO2 is still very much a trace gas (wasn't always). CO2, along with that more important "greenhouse gas", water vapor (H2O), is a building block of something called "life". CO2 is not a "pollutant".

I believe we need to be energy efficient and conserve our resources; but for a bunch of other reasons.

Congratulations on an amusing satire piece. Too bad Hermaan and others are so far gone they don't get it.

Kevin Phelan

OMG these commentators can't even tell this was a ...

2007-10-30T14:46:00.000-04:00

OMG these commentators can't even tell this was a satire. Yet they wonder why we think they aren't very bright.

We're not talking about an industry, we're talking...

2007-05-25T22:24:00.000-04:00

We're not talking about an industry, we're talking about a methodology.
Reality must take precedence in the search for truth, and one way to guard against confirmation bias cases is peer review. Context is everything.

Science is a journey - for the individual and the collective. It isn't about picking the trendiest topic you can think of, declaring yourself an expert, and starting a blog. Read his paper and then read the scientific basis report of the IPCC -- I'm not blaming him for the wrong answers, I'm blaming him for asking the wrong questions. There's no due diligence here.

Activism certainly has it place, but it shouldn't masquerade as science or promote the dissemination of junk science. 'Everybody else is doing it' is not sufficient justification, especially from someone who so (misleadingly) advertises his credentials as a scientist.

My heavens! Do "real scientists" not read anythi...

2007-05-24T19:14:00.000-04:00

My heavens! Do "real scientists" not read anything but their self-referential industry journals? Duh -- Jonathan Swift? A Modest Proposal? For just one example? Our dissident scientists, Drs Noble and Rancourt, may not do good satire, and some may even find it in bad taste (some will always find satire not to their taste) but it is plain silly (not to say simply sour) to call it bad science. Get a life, boys!

It is indeed sad. I'll post my comment on this lin...

2007-05-10T14:26:00.000-04:00

It is indeed sad.

I'll post my comment on this line of 'research', lest anyone be taken in by this, for a third time. It's not just that his calculations are, at best, 'rough' or that he's disagreeing with the consensus -- it's that he doesn't even understand the issue (as his discussion of 'net global increase' and CO2, amongst others, reveal). The good news is that htoseof us who are trained and published in the field of environmental science can all declare ourselves wormhole experts I guess.

Original comment follows:
----

DGR: Do you count yourself among those trying to make a buck off of climate change?

I mean, you're a prof of physics, great, but haven't we established that physicists are stupid?

Heck, I guess since you describe yourself as someone who has

"been researching and writing this article for many years; [and has ever since] decided to switch my teaching and research interests from physics to environmental science"

you must have some peer-reviewed science to back these conclusions up, right? The type we might find in a journal for instance? You wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon and then pretend to know which direction it's headed, right?

That'd be absurd. Like Lomborg's arguments on biodiversity, for instance.

Good job. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes Universities squeamish about handing out tenure to people who could espouse controversial views in a field they know something about.

It is sad that such a serious subject is treated i...

2007-05-09T08:11:00.000-04:00

It is sad that such a serious subject is treated in such a silly manner. If you have anything of substance to say why not say it at realclimate.org ? If the real science is wrong then surely you can show how and why, and if you are incapable of that, then maybe it is because you are wrong.

In yoga and meditation, often breathing is an impo...

2007-05-08T10:08:00.000-04:00

In yoga and meditation, often breathing is an important part, or increased breathing, so it may also continue to contribute to co2 emissions.