You are right that CO2 is heavier than air. There’s a good video clip on CO2 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0cqsdIsFBU

It was produced by the BBC and surprisingly it doesn’t twist the science, but just tells it like it is. In one part the host of the segment holds two sets of balloons (interesting that Al Gore used balloons as symbols, isn’t it?). One has helium in it, and floats above her head. The other set contains CO2, and sinks to the ground. And she says, “It weighs TONS. It’s really heavy.” Another interesting part is she shows a group that was running some scientific experiments, seeing what effect increased CO2 levels had on plant growth. The results were conclusive: CO2 is not only essential to photosynthesis, but higher concentrations of CO2 increase photosynthetic action in plants. They show a couple examples of this principle in action. It’s undeniable. CO2 is a great plant fertilizer!

A video I found (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrVEM3OdyRc) demonstrates the basics of photosynthesis. Notice in the chemical equation that for every molecule of CO2 that comes into photosynthesis an equal amount of oxygen is produced. So more CO2 now means a more oxygen-rich atmosphere in the future, and by the above example, more biomass.

Another short BBC video clip I found (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgGnfYGomGo) shows that CO2 is essential for root growth in plants.

I think it’s real ironic that CO2 reduction is called “green”. If anything it’s ANTI-green!

Anyway, facts don’t matter in the face of propaganda.

Maybe Gore can help things out by coming back as a “bull” frog?

I’ve viewed the situation slightly differently. A lot of times young people talk about “changing the world”, but when you examine what their world view is like it’s heavily centered on the U.S. So that’s what they’re really talking about.

Whereas I see the huge difference as the improved lives of the billions in India, China, elsewhere.

It also discusses the consequences of the anti-AGW policies on developing nations, which I think is a story that needs to be told.

Gosh, yes.

Thanks for the kind words.

Re: “what white people like”

I see what you’re saying. I’ve viewed the situation slightly differently. A lot of times young people talk about “changing the world”, but when you examine what their world view is like it’s heavily centered on the U.S. So that’s what they’re really talking about. The U.S. IS the “world” to them. There are exceptions, since there are plenty of young people who have travelled to foreign countries and experienced other cultures, so they understand a little about what the rest of the world is like, but this tends to be what I see.

Re: “green” is a HUGE money machine

Yes, I’ve been hearing that. Interestingly there are environmental activists who are not playing along. You don’t hear it often. It rarely comes up in the news, but it’s there if you listen for it.

Several years ago I started hearing complaints from them indirectly that windmills were killing birds, for example. More recently I’ve been hearing from them that solar power plants are going to take up huge swaths of land, and endanger animals and migration patterns. What idealists keep bumping up against is the cost/benefits that go with any change in technology. It’s not all cost-free.

Lately terms like “big wind” and “big solar” have been cropping up in environmental circles. Again this is muted, but it’s there if you listen for it. Some are seeing the money and power of the “green” movement and they’re wary of it.

Re: “We have had the environmental movement for decades, and the reason it has maintained its relevance (and its employment rate) is by periodically starting a scare.”

My first revelation about this was reading Glen Duncan’s book “Goodbye Green” some years ago. He basically says that the environmental movement started because of real issues that needed to be addressed, but once they were addressed, environmentalism became a political tool of certain groups that had nothing to do with what environmentalism started out with. It’s a good book to read for anyone who’s interested in the environmental movement. It’ll give one a “heads up” on what to expect.

The political Right has been piling on the environmental movement primarily because AGW has been its big issue. While I think they rightly criticize the basis for AGW, I think there’s still a place for environmental activists to do constructive work. I saw a Frontline documentary a little while back called “Poisoned Waters” that talked about pollution problems that have been cropping up in certain waterways on the coasts, like Chesapeake Bay, and it looks like sound analysis to me, not something that’s made up. It talked about what environmental organizations are trying to do to get political consensus on these issues, and interestingly they’ve had to resort to “diversionary tactics”, because most people in these areas are not interested in environmental impacts of pollution when it doesn’t directly affect them. Instead they’ll campaign on issues like urban congestion and noise pollution, real issues that those populations care about, but the real objective of those putting on the campaigns is to try to limit pollution from runoff. They openly talk about this in the doc.

Sometimes I’ve wondered if AGW is a similar “diversionary tactic” for some real issue, but I have yet to learn what that is. The closest I’ve come is I’ve heard occasionally that the oceans are getting more acidic due to increased concentrations of CO2, which is harming corral reefs. From the evidence it sounds like a real issue of concern, but I’m not sure we know the cause of the increased CO2 in the oceans either. My inclination is to believe it’s natural, but of course scientific analysis would need to be obtained to know for sure.

In any case I hate the way the AGW campaign is distorting science, regardless of the real agenda. What I worry about is what’s going to happen to the public image of science once it’s revealed and widely accepted (as I predict it will be one day) that AGW is pseudo-science as bad as the fraud that was “cold fusion”? Once government measures based on the idea are put in effect and people feel the negative effects of them, won’t this discredit science altogether in the public mind when this is revealed? That’s one of my worst fears, because then what replaces it? I can only think of superstition and irrational ideas as substitutes. I’d rather not see us return to Medieval thinking.

The documentary that I think really nailed AGW was “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast on the UK’s Channel 4 a couple years ago. A quote from it sticks with me. One of the scientists on the show said, “We like to think we live in an age of reason.” One of the points of the show is that we clearly do not.

It gives the history of the AGW theory and names names: who started it, who’s behind it now, and why, and what the IPCC really is (told by former IPCC members). The evidence the show discusses, what could really be driving climate, is compelling: The Sun, heck, the universe! After I saw it I thought “This makes sense!” The Earth is but a speck of dust compared to the size and power of the Sun, and is even less compared to influences in our own galaxy, so why wouldn’t they influence our climate? I’m not saying that it showed scientifically rigorous proof of what drives climate, but goodness it looks promising.

It also discusses the consequences of the anti-AGW policies on developing nations, which I think is a story that needs to be told.

So far I’ve heard only one complaint about the show from a scientist they used as a source. They used several scientific sources, so I think it still stands up well.

It is getting hot on climate progress

“A “guardian of the truth” on Wikipedia, the global internet encyclopedia, has been caught up in an embarrassing scandal after it was revealed that he created bogus online identities to change entries on the system.

David Boothroyd – a London councillor by day, a cyber policeman by night – has been forced to resign from Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee after his alias editing gave rise to a major conflict of interest. ”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html

Let’s hope William Connolley is the next to be expelled.

I think the fact that even a few years ago we didn’t see the now-HUGE money machine around environmental scare tactics that we do speaks volumes. I mean, it’s a fad, it’s a la mode, it’s the way right-thinking, aware people behave now. We have had the environmental movement for decades, and the reason it has maintained its relevance (and its employment rate) is by periodically starting a scare. Anyone in marketing knows how difficult it is to maintain the attention of their audience – thus the hyperbole. Not merely “you’ll lose the Fire-bellied Newt”, but “you, and your children, and everything you know and love on this planet are going to be annihilated unless you adopt right behavior – and put your money where we want you to.”

Here’s a nice quote I just received from my brother, well worth repeating here and anywhere there’s space to put it:

From the book “Stuff White People Like”:

“An interesting fact about white people is that they firmly believe that all of the world’s problems can be solved through awareness, meaning the process of making other people aware of problems, magically causing someone else, like the government, to fix it.

This belief allows them to feel that sweet self-satisfaction without actually having to solve anything or face any difficult challenges, because the only challenge of raising awareness is getting the attention of people who are currently unaware.”

Further: I recently was moved to cancel my membership in the National Geographic Society, the reason being that they have taken up the hysteria: “the tipping point, Earth’s future in the balance” – outrageous childish hyperbole that sells magazines. Enough – they won’t get another dime out of me, and I mean even if they reverse the course they’re on now.

Yes, sadly National Geographic is not the magazine it used to be, which was doing quality studies in geographic/anthropological exploration and presenting them to a broad audience. The old issues (pre-2000 or thereabouts) are still classics, of course.

I have heard marine biologists who have said alarmist things about the climate in the news media. I seem to remember even seeing a botanist on the news saying this sort of stuff some years back. Unfortunately I don’t have names for you. What I criticize them for is I don’t see how they can say what they say authoritatively. They can speak with authority about the effects of climate change on the species they study, though unfortunately even then they can be wrong. I used to often hear news about how the polar bears were threatened by climate change, but then I hear about official government studies that show that their population has actually grown over the last 30 years.

I’m always surprised to learn that a “scientist” (as they’re billed when they get on the news–just the generic moniker) says that AGW is causing worrisome climate change, and then when the text with their name appears it reveals what field of study they’re in, and it’s often not “climatologist” or “meteorologist”, but “marine biologist”, or some other field not related to atmospheric research.

It dismays me to see scientists get on the news and blatantly spew politically biased science. They do a disservice to their discipline.

On this subject: has anyone seen any REAL scientists using this sort of hyperbole? To clarify: is there a single field biologist who is actually saying that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point from which there is no return for life on Earth and that it is the fault of human activity, like that flake Lovelock? I think this is an important point, and I have yet to see any evidence that anyone other than green NGOs, sensational authors, and journalists – ie. professional fear profiteers – is saying so.

I’ll be watching this thread for replies, thanks in advance for any good information.

“The line between ‘respectable’ science journalism and calculated, self-serving falsehood, particularly on television, has been blurred into nonexistence in recent years…”

That should clear things up for anyone wondering what the hell I was driving at.

Which tells you all you need to know about the technical knowledge of the average journalist…

Play it again, Sam. Quick!

At this point , I would like to offer myself for the post of:

Honorary Emeritus Resident Pianist, Ex Symposium to WUWT

As a great-great-great-grandpupil of Beethoven (true), I feel I am excellently qualified for the post (but please, not the acronym).

By the nature of the job, being an old crock who doesn’t get paid I never turn up to play anything; this a good allegory of the first law of thermodynamics, and yet another illustration that the warmist’s positive feedbacks are wrong.

The effect of a few (7 or 8) pianos, especially if tuned separately and then brought together, can, like my singing, cause quite severe local precipitation effects; but this is only weather. However, the response (like CO2) is logarithmic, and the effect of 50 may only cause slight local flooding.

The warmists are desparate now, and may even sieze on this for their cause. So if you need an authoritative article on the effects of grand pianos on global average temperature, then just let me know.

Back in 2000 I played the Ferrari Steinway (a Model D done out in Ferrari red).
Is this what stopped the apocalypse in its tracks?