Media Alchemy: turning steam into smoke

I’ve covered this issue before, in fact some of my work is used in this new video which illustrates how alarmism in the media is aided by selective photography and Photoshop trickery. It gores hand in hand with this recent essay: Climate Persuasion – or how to ignore data and influence people

Watch this video which shows several examples:

Global Warming revisited is a new video series from the Galileo Movement that reviews the current state of the Climate Change Debate. In this first video we look at the tricks Media and Alarmists use to portray steam as pollution.
For more information please visit http://www.galileomovement.com.au.
The Galileo Movement seeks to foster open and free discussion of major scientific issues, notably the current debate regarding man-made climate change.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in media and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Media Alchemy: turning steam into smoke

  1. philjourdan says:

    Houdini was a piker compared to these wizards!

  2. Richard Binns says:

    Looks like a Freudian slip in 2nd sentence!

  3. Brad Tittle says:

    Inaccuracy in the movie: The steam coming out of the cooling towers comes from the water cooling the steam used in the steam turbines. It is not the steam coming out of the turbines. We recycle that steam into feedwater. The steam coming out of the cooling towers went through the Condenser which condensed the steam back into a liquid for which then gets picked up by feed pumps. The pumps force the water through feed water heaters that slowly increase the temperature closer to boiling so that when it get back to the boiler it takes less to boil it again.

    As I have just demonstrated though, trying to explain this WILL NOT win you any friends or influence any people, it is boring. As soon as I said condenser, half the people left.

    The interesting part of the discussion is most of what we see coming out of the actual smoke stack on coal plants is steam. There are contaminants mixed in with the steam. We just can’t see them as well.

    That doesn’t win over anyone either. What will win them over is a picture of a asthma afflicted child.

  4. Doctor Gee says:

    “it gores hand in hand” – typo or Freudian slip? Appropriately said in either case.

  5. OldWeirdHarold says:

    Once again, these guys aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer regarding mad cyber skilz. Metadata can be removed. However, even if they did that, the “fingerprint” of photoshop remains in the image itself.

    Or maybe they just don’t care.

  6. John Phillips says:

    I agree with Brad Tittle, with one additional caveat. Steam is invisible. Steam by definition has to be greater than 100C, so the white cloud coming out of the cooling tower is not even steam. its water vapor and condensed water droplets. But your point and the video’s points are well taken.

  7. gdpbullsht says:

    Visual propaganda is a common tactic used by media. Another one is to show nuclear reactor cooling tower clouds at night when the ground lighting appears to make the clouds glow. And if they want to get an unfavorable picture of someone they are criticizing, all they have to do is get any video of the person and freeze it occasionally until they get an unfavorable image of the person, for example a bad or ugly facial expression.

  8. Darrin says:

    Brad Tittle says:

    August 8, 2013 at 9:43 am

    You hit the nail on the head there. I was spluttering myself over the comment that power plants were exhausting the steam. When debunking accuracy is needed.

  9. “It gores hand in hand”, may be a Freudian slip but this is an example of how valuable new English Phrases are introduced to the language.

  10. gdpbullsht says:

    I’m sorry, but for some reason my comments are sometimes labeled John Phillips, which is what I want, but other times my comments are labeled gdpbullsht which I don’t want. That is a login name for a different website. I don’t get it. Sorry, I’m computer stupid.

  11. Myron Mesecke says:

    I can dig up some nice looking photos I took of steam back in the early 80s when I visited a paper plant. They look nice and dark too but it is still steam.

  12. Greg Goodman says:

    gdpbullsht , you “other site” is likely also on wordpress. once logged in it uses that ID automatically unless you explicitly log out of WP , then it will ask you for name, email etc.

  13. Please leave “… gores hand in hand … ” as it is. If that’s intentional, it’s brilliant. If not, lie and say you meant to do that.

  14. Joe Public says:

    The Beeb tends to exclusively illustrate Harrabin’s gloom-laden climate articles with otherwise-transparent back-lit flue/chimney emissions photos.

  15. Joe says:

    Just saw this: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/reports-reveal-dire-picture-humanity-painting-earth-climate-154742929.html

    Seems like the AGW proponents are winning the fight since the media and the so called “mainstream scientific community” isn’t changing it’s narrative or backing off.

    Just really don’t know what to think anymore, seems like a lost cause. I just get the feeling that 20 years from now when there STILL has been no significant warming that everything will be the same. That’s what I though 20 years ago too.

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Brad Tittle says: @ August 8, 2013 at 9:43 am
    ….As I have just demonstrated though, trying to explain this WILL NOT win you any friends or influence any people, it is boring. As soon as I said condenser, half the people left…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is because you forgot to use a moonshine still as the illustration for a condenser. (This is the type of condenser I am more familiar with link )

  17. george e. smith says:

    “””””…….Brad Tittle says:

    August 8, 2013 at 9:43 am

    ………………………………….

    The interesting part of the discussion is most of what we see coming out of the actual smoke stack on coal plants is steam. There are contaminants mixed in with the steam. We just can’t see them as well.

    That doesn’t win over anyone either. What will win them over is a picture of a asthma afflicted child……..”””””””

    Well I have very vivid pictures of an Asthma afflicted child; two of them actually.

    Me and my younger sister, who had it worse than I did. I owe my whole career to being an Asthma inflicted child. Without it, I would be a very wealthy and retired former sheep rancher in New Zealand. Instead of playing rugby and cricket, or planting potatoes and maize, or mowing lawns, shucking hay etc, I was under my bed reading encyclopedias, and building crystal sets.

    In all those years, of wheezing and gasping; neither my sister, nor me, ever had an asthma attack triggered by smoke, of any kind; or even by steam. At one time I actually used to stick my head, in the smoke coming off some sulphurous seeming powder, under a towel, to relieve my wheezing condition.

    Asthma doesn’t have anything to do with the lungs as far as I know. It is a constriction of the passage leading into the lungs (whatever that is called.) It doesn’t affect the lungs at all.

    Now I am sure that particulate matter in smoke, can get in your lungs and cause lung probems; but it that isn’t asthma.

    Pollens and the like now give me hay fever, and sneezing fits, but I don’t get asthma any more.

    Yes I’m against air pollution. I’m also against starvation, and all the other deprivations, that plague people in undeveloped or otherwise backward (by choice) lands.

  18. Gail Combs says:

    Joe says:
    August 8, 2013 at 10:24 am

    ….Seems like the AGW proponents are winning the fight since the media and the so called “mainstream scientific community” isn’t changing it’s narrative or backing off…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    Joe, the media is pure propaganda. Period I figured that out when a major Vietnam protest right after Kent State was shown as happening on my Big Ten University campus. lots of film footage of this protest was shown on nation wide TV EXCEPT in the state where the University was located.

    Just one problem, I was on Campus from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm and THERE WAS NO PROTEST…. THEY LIED. I have never believed the Media since and quit watching TV.

    More on the bought and paid for media link (see my comment at bottom of article)

  19. mike fowle says:

    I applaud their efforts. Some years ago the government in the UK sponsored adverts on TV that showed a man walking through a house leaving black oily footprints, as if he had been treading through crude oil. It was to convince us to reduce our “carbon footprint”.

  20. John Phillips says:

    Thanks Greg Goodman. I think that’s the problem

  21. Betapug says:

    Just enter “CO2 emissions” in Google Images for the full pandora’s box.

  22. Jimbo says:

    But all that water vapour will lead to positive feedback runaway catastrophe. We must act now, water vapour is a toxin. / sarc

  23. TomB says:

    I remember an over-the-top alarmist “news presentation” where they used an infrared camera to film car exhaust. The commentator goes on to breathlessly exclaim how we’re viewing CO2 spewing from the exhaust. My wife jumped up as I began screaming at the TV “Infrared cameras can’t see CO2, it’s HEAT we’re looking at!” Another dishonest alarmist propaganda ploy.

  24. Mike Maguire says:

    Nobody would deny that black carbon/soot and particulate matter from black smoke is pollution/harmful. Aggressive measures should be taken to treat and eradicate that kind of pollution. Millions of people each year have premature deaths(mostly in China and India) from this kind of real pollution.

    However CO2, a beneficial gas is invisible and odorless. You can’t see it(coming out of a smoke stack) or smell it. When you see smoke, steam or anything coming out of a smokestack, regardless of the color(black or otherwise), texture or thickness, you are not seeing CO2.

    Whenever somebody shows you a smokestack with anything coming out and suggests you are looking at CO2, it’s a lie 100% of the time.

  25. Ha ha! “Lie. Deceive. Be Dishonest”…having been deceitful and dishonest by carefully constructing the video to suggest that power generation ONLY emits steam ["it is steam you see from these towers" or somesuch], when of course it also emits CO2, N2, H2O, SOx, NOx and particulates (depending on country and clean air regs) from the flue chimney. So propaganda, but from the deniers/skeptics this time.

  26. Grant says:

    It is steam, but it comes from hydrocarbons in the coal. If you heat coal you get coke, coal gas, tar and other hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons produce steam and CO2 when burnt. The diagram shows a “condenser”. Power stations generally recycle their steam so they do not get boiler scale like steam locomotives. A good video otherwise.

  27. knr says:

    As there ever been a situation before were the science is claimed to be so strong , indeed settled, and yet you see massive use of smoke and mirrors, BS and out right lies to support it ?

  28. Grant says:

    Almost all modern western power stations scrub the smoke from furnaces and sell it as fly ash. China is now doing this also.

  29. Steve Keohane says:

    Why don’t they just make it green and be done with it?
    http://i39.tinypic.com/6dyhwi.jpg

  30. Mike Maguire says:

    “of course it also emits CO2, N2, H2O, SOx, NOx and particulates……So propaganda, but from the deniers/skeptics this time”

    SOx=Bad
    NOx=Bad
    Particulates=Very Bad

    N2=Unreactive Nitrogen

    H20=Good
    CO2=Good

    There is only disagreement on the last one of these things and it mainly relates to global temperatures(since I think everyone must agree that CO2 is causing plants/crops and world food production to increase greatly).

    So, either CO2 is causing catastrophic warming or it’s a beneficial gas.

    If you can’t show the catastrophic warming(without global climate models using math equations that were/are used to represent the physics of the atmosphere based on the 80′s/90′s theoretical thinking— when there WAS unexplained warming), then………………..why is CO2 pollution?

  31. Sharpshooter says:

    The “agenda” from the Mushroom Media; think of the Rodney King video that helped spark riot in LA. The media (all of them) showed 20 some seconds of a four minute video, leaving out where King threw four cops off of his body.
    And NBC is probably going to pay our tens of $$millions to George Zimmerman for their bogus, DELIBERATE sound edit.

  32. AndyG55 says:

    @Grant ” It is steam, but it comes from hydrocarbons in the coal. ”

    The steam coming from the cooling towers comes from water.

    @Kit….Yes there are some compounds that come from the burning of coal, but they go through a rigorous scrubbing process to minimise the output of anything that could be termed a real pollutant.

    The BIG LIE is that of pretending that any of the output from the cooling towers is anything but water vapour. This is what the video deal with.. A BIG WARMIST LIE !!

  33. AndyG55 says:

    Even the fly ash is put to good use. It ends up in cement and road surfaces etc.

  34. Gail Combs says:

    Kit Carruthers says:
    August 8, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Ha ha! “Lie. Deceive. Be Dishonest”…having been deceitful and dishonest by carefully constructing the video to suggest that power generation ONLY emits steam [“it is steam you see from these towers”…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Flue gas is normally unseen so the photographers use the STEAM from the condensers instead and not flue gas which goes through scrubbers to remove particulates, sulfur and other nasties, at least in the USA.

    I was around in the 50s when the USA had real pollution, we have cleaned up our act since then thank goodness.

    Of course if you are talking about China….

  35. SMC says:

    This video is misleading on how a power plant works. It should be revised. The visible vapor coming out of the cooling towers is indeed, just steam. The vapor coming out of the stacks is the scrubbed exhaust gasses from the boilers. The scrubbing process general consists of ESP (Electrostatic Precipitators) to remove the fly ash. An SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) to remove the NOx. And, an FGD (Flue Gas Desulpherization) to remove the SOx. The SCR produces most of the visible steam with the FGD contributing some.

  36. Allencic says:

    Bill O’Reilly often acknowledges his scientific imbecility when he shows a picture of steam coming out of a smokestack and rants about how with global warming we have to get that “gook” out of the air. What a “maroon.”

  37. Oatley says:

    We conduct power plant tours every year. When I get to the cooling towers I ask how many people identify it with a nuclear plant. Invariably more than a third raise their hands (we are at a coal plant). I let them know it is water vapor from the condenser cycle, but also let them understand how the media is more than willing to mislead….funny to watch old ladies shaking their heads in disgust.

  38. “So, either CO2 is causing catastrophic warming or it’s a beneficial gas.

    If you can’t show the catastrophic warming(…), then………………..why is CO2 pollution?”

    Woah, easy tiger! Firstly, CO2 can be both beneficial and harmful, depending on concentration and receptor. And secondly, I’m not here to show anything about CO2. I commented to point out the irony in producing a video which criticises media for not representing industry properly…and then goes ahead and misrepresents industry.

    As you, and others, have picked up on, my list of emissions includes harmless ones too. But none of these were mentioned in the video – a serious oversight, and the question is: deliberate or incompetent misrepresentation?

    “Of course if you are talking about China….” Well, my post does read “(depending on country and clean air regs)”, so waddya reckon? :-)

  39. Sleepalot says:

    SOx – good, NOx – good. They form acids and then salts which are fertilizers.

  40. _Jim says:

    Grant says August 8, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    It is steam, but it comes from hydrocarbons in the coal. …

    Where does the hydrogen molecule fit into the picture again?
    .

  41. Txomin says:

    Climate warming is political candy. Elected officials will move in a different direction when a replacement is found (or, rather, given to them). Can anyone think of a harmless alarm that will sucker the electorate but cost little/nothing to not-resolve?

  42. Janice Moore says:

    “Ha ha! “Lie. Deceive. Be Dishonest”… *** ["it is steam you see from these towers" or somesuch], … .” [Kit Carruthers at 12:49PM, 8/8/13]

    And what do YOU see, Ms. Carruthers?

  43. Doug Badgero says:

    A couple of minor corrections:

    A coal plant that uses a wet scrubber will also have water vapor coming out the flue stack.
    Wet scrubbers produce gypsum not fly ash.
    Fly ash is the very fine particulate matter removed by the bag house/precipitators. Bottom ash is also produced, the source is self explanatory I think.
    The flue gas from an unscrubbed coal plant in the US is nearly invisible. You can tell the plant is operating if the lighting is just right, but it isn’t always easy.

  44. Patrick says:

    Talk of alarmist media and Govn’t propaganda WRT CO2, this is what we’re blatantly exposed to Australia.

  45. Patrick says:

    “Kit Carruthers says:

    August 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Firstly, CO2 can be both beneficial and harmful, depending on concentration and receptor.”

    If we consider Apollo 13 as an example, how do you see well mixed atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 1.5% – 2% (15,000 – 20,000 ppm/v) to start to become toxic?

  46. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Patrick,

    An antidote to The Deadly Black Balloons propaganda film put out by the Fantasy Science Club.

    Take heart! These children are not all brainwashed. Truth — will — win.

    Australia is.

    Cheers!

    Janice

  47. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    A clarification is in order concerning part of the description accompanying the video. The other comments in the video concerning the intentional deception perpetrated by the various government bodies, much of the media and others are in my opinion 100% correct.

    At 1.26 the video refers to “releasing the steam after it’s been used in the electricity making process”. That statement is not correct, the steam used to turn the turbine is not released though the chimney stack, it is condensed and fed back into the boiler to be reused in the steam cycle. The steam (water vapour) released via the chimney stack is formed during the combustion of the coal fuel.

    The steam (water vapour) coming from the cooling towers is created by evaporation of cooling water which is primarily used to cool the condenser. The condenser cools and condenses the steam back to water once it has passed through the turbine before it is again fed to the boiler as feed water.

    Whether or not the water vapour from the chimney stack or the cooling tower become visible depends on weather factors such as the ambient temperature and humidity.

    This kind of deception sadly is pretty much standard procedure in the MSM here in Australia.

    Here is a specific example of this kind of propaganda:
    First look at this picture of the Hazelwood brown coal power station in Victoria as it appears on the web site of Environment Victoria, note how atmospheric conditions have been carefully selected to emphasis the plumes of flue gas water vapour . Then look at this picture of the same station, in reality more than 95% of the time this is what you’ll see. Hazelwood does not have cooling towers, but instead has a substantial cooling water pond or lake. On cool mornings water vapour can often be seen rising from this cooling water pond.

  48. richardscourtney says:

    Janice Moore:

    Many thanks for the video in your post at August 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/media-alchemy-turning-steam-into-smoke/#comment-1385164

    That is beautiful!
    It shows true patriotism of the kind from which we all benefit whatever our nationality.

    I am not Australian and I have never visited Oz but will be commending that video to others because – as someone much wiser than me said – everybody benefits from obeying the tenet,
    “Love your neighbour AS yourself.”

    Richard

  49. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Richard,

    I am so glad to know that someone besides myself enjoyed that video. How kind of you to tell me. So often, when I post a video that moved me deeply or that I thought would be uplifting or amusing, no one else feels the same (or, at least, no one says anything). And that is depressing. Did you see the video of the happy dog surprises (when military owners return after a long time) on the original thread about that silly Tol Poll (Here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/the-tol-poll-rating-climate-denizens/ — on 8/3 at 3:16PM)? I’ve watched that at least half a dozen times I love it so much.

    Well, I love dogs an awful lot. Perhaps, that is the key to liking that video… .

    You followed the wisdom of Leviticus 19:18 by taking the time to write to me here.
    THANK YOU!

    Your ally in the battle for truth in science,

    Janice

  50. Bruce Cobb says:

    Smoke, steam, water vapor, NOx, CO2 etc., are all now conveniently labeled as emmissions now by the lamebrained media (in this case, the NYT). So, they simply tar CO2 with the same brush.
    The Capitol Power Plant now runs primarily on diesel, having been forced to move away from coal by dim-witted Pelosi and crew. Oh, the ironing.

  51. Owen in GA says:

    oh, but that visible gas coming from the stack is the known trouble maker DHMO which is known to kill more people than just about any other substance on Earth. We should all be very very worried by this release of this horrible material. http://dhmo.org/facts.html (I should add that there is a very large /SARC on that in case anyone should be confused)

  52. “Janice Moore says:
    August 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    And what do YOU see, Ms. Carruthers?”

    I see water vapour. But those aren’t the only towers one finds on a power station, now are they Mr. Moore? Which means the video conveniently/accidentally ignores other emissions from power stations.

    “Patrick says:
    August 8, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    If we consider Apollo 13 as an example, how do you see well mixed atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 1.5% – 2% (15,000 – 20,000 ppm/v) to start to become toxic?”

    I’m sorry I don’t understand your question, but if you are asking about CO2 toxicity, then this document may be of interest: http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/assets/docs/major-hazard-potential-carbon-dioxide.pdf So, toxic at some concentrations, but not at others, and of course beneficial to plant life assuming no other stresses. The HSE doc, and I think your Apollo 13 example, of course relates to direct inhalation, and not the insipid effects of CO2 as a GHG.

  53. Brian H says:

    Ms. Carruthers;
    No, you don’t see water vapour. It’s also an invisible gas. What you see is water droplets, from water vapour condensing in clouds. Same as the “steam” from a kettle.

    The vapour phase is commonly called “live steam”, >100°C. Or the humidity in un-saturated air.

  54. Patrick says:

    “Kit Carruthers says:

    August 9, 2013 at 8:05 am”

    I see your website is littered with alarmist claptrap. My post demonstrates that CO2 at 1.5% – 2% STARTS to become “toxic” for humans. We will never ever see 15,000 – 20,000ppm/v CO2 in well mixed air from emissions from burning fossil fuels. Indoors CO2 is between 0.08% to 0.1%. Submarines operate at a max of 8,000ppm/v CO2. We exhale with each breath ~40,000ppm/v CO2. Commercial greenhouses typically have CO2 concentrations of 1000 – 1500ppm/v. CO2 in well mixed air is ~400ppm/v, or 0.04%. Where, in normal well mixed atmospheric air conditions, and at what levels does CO2 become “harmful” as you claim? It’s a very simple question.

  55. Janice Moore says:

    Say, PATRICK, (smile) did you hate the video (posted at 11:15PM on 8/8/13) I searched the internet over an HOUR to find for you THAT bad?

    I wanted to find a good music vid of “Waltzing Matilda” but there just wasn’t a first class one.

    Nice post to refute ol’ Carruthers.

  56. Patrick says:

    “Janice Moore says:

    August 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm”

    To this day I still find it hard to fathom people still believe CO2 is harmful at normal atmospheric concentrations given we know the following;

    Changes in CO2 *FOLLOW* changes in temperatures by ~800 years.
    Roughly half of the annual ~4% human contribution is absorbed somewhere.
    Plants use other nutrients more efficiently in CO2 rich environments.
    Coal is a biofuel, it’s concentrated sunlight!
    CO2 + Water + Nitrogen + Sunlight = Food *AND* O2.
    The “heating” effect of CO2 is logarithmic not linear and is largely saturated out or smothered by water vapour leaving a small “window” at around 15 microns.
    Periods in Earths past where CO2 was at concentrations of several thousands ppm/v, the planet and all life on it then survived, there is no evidence of “harm”.
    CH4 at 1800ppBILLION/v is not worth worrying about and oxidizes to CO2 quickly.
    Humans need to breath in CO2 in order to maintain healthy lung tissue and function.

    I could go on, but it’s futile. 97% of “all” scientists say so, so the science *is* settled. Must be true, after all Al “Oxy” Gore’s film was in colour, right?

    All this information is freely available on the interweb nowadays, I sourced much of it in libraries before the interweb became famous, all knowing and all seeing.

    The “belief” in the “97%” is rather funny because the person who came up with the theory (Died before he was vindicated and theory proven to be correct by “Cold War” era ocean floor mapping.) of continental drift was an amateur geology enthusiast and was ridiculed by professional geologists. HA!

    September 7th is when Australians to go to the Polls in this years Federal election where the leader of the opposition (Liberal/National Party – LNP), Tony Abbott, has vowed to dismantle the carbon pricing mechanism, locally known as the carbon tax, if the LNP wins power. However, the LNP have a “direct action” plan on climate change, which, in effect, just uses tax from the consolidated fund to fund the “action”, whatever that maybe. I have contacted the LNP and stated that the LNP needs to;

    Bin the “direct action” plan.
    Close the Climate Commission Body.
    Use the AU$10bil, currently consumed by “green projects”, on infrastructure that matters (Schools, Health, Transport and the like).
    Sack Tim Flannery and save taxpayers AU$180k p/a for his 3 days per week job at misinforming the public about climate change.

    I won’t hold my breath though, Abbott is a politician after all.

    That AD you link to is a very common AD here is Aus, it is well made and shows off some of the wonders down under very well. There is a series of them by Qantas. But you might like this one;

    These guys also do a “version” of Waltzing Matilda too. But you might like this one instead;

    Enjoy!

    PS. WARNING! The singer in the second link is Kevin “Bloody” Wilson. I suggest you don’t listen to any other songs of his as his language is very, errrmmm, “fruity” to say the least. This one is clean however.

  57. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Patrick says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:04 am

    Kevin “Bloody” Wilson is actually a very funny man. Swears a bit yes, but in my view it usually just adds authenticity.

  58. Patrick says:

    “Bob in Castlemaine says:

    August 10, 2013 at 2:54 am”

    I agree however many don’t. I saw him live in Reading, with an Aussie, in the UK in 1993-ish, and once he “got going” I saw many people get up and leave. Oh the comedy…

  59. Aidan Donnelly says:

    Janice Moore says: August 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Thanks for posting that Janice, haven’t seen or heard it for a while. Nor this one which can still make me tear up some, mostly sad that the spirit behind these seems to have been lost – at least for now…

  60. Janice Moore says:

    Hey, Patrick,

    Thank you for responding to my SHOUT OUT. Glad to know you saw the vid I posted and thought, at least, that it was well made. I, an American, found it deeply touching.

    Thank you for sharing or, rather, TRYING to share the above two videos with me (us). I very likely would have enjoyed them. Alas, the first one re-directed me to You Tube where I would be happy to go to watch it, but there was no link to send me there (and I’m not computer saavy enough to discover what the http address for that video is). The second one, upon clicking on it, said, “This video does not exist.” If you would be so kind, please write out the full titles of those videos so I can search for and, hopefully, watch them on You Tube.

    And, re: your excellent CO2 Fact Sheet, nice summary and I agree completely.

    Janice
    ***********************************

    Dear Aidan,

    How kind of you to bother to let me know you enjoyed the video I posted. I like that one very much, indeed. Thanks for yours! I enjoyed that one, too. Take heart! The real Australia yet lives. Many, many, strong, patriotic, honest, hearts across your great, beautiful, continent beat with love for their native land. Australia IS.

    Never, never, never, never give up.

    Your ally in the fight for Truth in Science (and for freedom),

    Janice

  61. Patrick says:

    “Janice Moore says:

    August 10, 2013 at 5:49 pm”

    Information about CO2, the planets, the solar system, weather and climate is freely available to all, I guess far too many people are either too lazy or are simply too trusting of authority, climate scientists, the IPCC, economists and politicians. Given we know Al Gore is a famous driver of alarmist propaganda mocumentaries and the like should be enough on it’s own for anyone to start to question the “consensus”.

    You could try Googling “Come To Australia by Scared Weird Little Guys” for the first clip and “Kevin Bloody Wilson Rendition of Waltzing Matilda, once sung once brass instrumental.…” for the second. It is possible that if the clips are hosted in Australia, it might not play in the US. In some cases this is true in the opposite direction.

  62. Janice Moore says:

    Patrick,

    Thanks for the tip for searching for the videos. I found them both on You Tube. The first was pretty funny. Couldn’t find the second one.

    Take care,

    Janice

  63. Janice Moore says:

    I did NOT find them “both.” I THOUGHT I had found them both.

  64. Patrick says:

    Could be the videos “are here and not there” type thing. Ah well, they were funny and informative. You might try google.com.au…might get you some results.

  65. Andrew says:

    I don’t see the problem – that’s a picture of coal power-plants emitting huge amounts of the visible, highly dangerous, and known powerful GHG dihydrogen monoxide (also known by its chemical symbol H2O).

    Everyone knows that it is H2O responsible for the enormous feedback loops inherent in CAGW theory – the weak GHG CO2 has only a trivial and logarithmically decreasing effect without H2O. And here we see it being pumped into the atmosphere by Big Coal without any controls at all!

    When will governments come together to regulate emissions of this deadly GHG? Perhaps some kind of cap-and-trade scheme would be the most efficient way of procuring the lowest cost abatement of H2O.

  66. “Brian H says:
    August 9, 2013 at 10:46 am”

    Happy to be corrected, thanks! Oh, and BTW, I’m a Mr., not a Ms. Look forward to you acknowledging the correction :-)

    “Patrick says:
    August 9, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    …Where, in normal well mixed atmospheric air conditions, and at what levels does CO2 become “harmful” as you claim? It’s a very simple question.”

    Patrick, I think you’re creating an argument where there isn’t one. I’m not disagreeing that CO2 is not harmful, if given the opportunity to disperse (setting AGW aside, since your examples are of spaceships, greenhouses and the like). That is to say that if we start at a high concentration, and it is “well mixed” as you say, i.e. diluted, then the concentration reduces, and harm is prevented. However, if it cannot mix or be diluted then the link I posted to the toxicity of CO2 shows clearly the concentrations and exposure times at which the gas is toxic to humans. Therefore, in situations where CO2 accumulates at these concentrations, it becomes “harmful” (fatally so!). Are you disagreeing with this? If so, do you have an alternative explanation for the tragedy at Lake Nyos? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos)

    So, returning to my original statement which you were questioning “Firstly, CO2 can be both beneficial and harmful, depending on concentration and receptor.”, then I am quite correct. The effect of CO2 depends on concentration and receptor (human, animal, plant, atmosphere).

  67. Patrick says:

    “Kit Carruthers says:

    August 11, 2013 at 9:07 am

    If so, do you have an alternative explanation for the tragedy at Lake Nyos? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos)”

    Oh dear, I wondered when you’d bring this up. Look up on the geology of the area (Crater lake d’oh), then look up the atomic weight of CO2. What was the concentration. If I recall it was 170,000ppm/v, or 17%. Atomic weight of CO2 is 44, so it displaced O2. Yes, that will kill anything reliant on O2 for life.

    Next you will be claiming Earth will become another Venus due to increased CO2. Nice try, but no cigar!

  68. I say “Therefore, in situations where CO2 accumulates at these concentrations, it becomes “harmful” (fatally so!). Are you disagreeing with this?” and you say “If I recall it was 170,000ppm/v, or 17%. Atomic weight of CO2 is 44, so it displaced O2. Yes, that will kill anything reliant on O2 for life.” Therefore we are in agreement, wonderful!

  69. Patrick says:

    “Kit Carruthers says:

    August 12, 2013 at 4:04 am”

    As with anything, even O2 and H2O, in the right concentration it’s lethal. However, what you are claiming in most of your posts and at your website is that at NORMAL atmospheric concentrations, ~400pm/v, CO2 is harmful. You post a link to a volcanic crater lake where the outgassing of CO2 killed people because it dispersed O2. There is no evidence to support your claim CO2 is harmful at normal atmospheric concentrations. Laughable!

Comments are closed.