Tom Nelson makes me laugh

I busted out laughing when I saw this on Tom Nelson’s blog.

His title was “For climate hucksters, two inconvenient Google trends”.

I never think about this sort of stuff, but it was darn funny.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 13, 2009 3:56 pm

Imagine if Alexa used Mannian math….

June 13, 2009 4:15 pm

Don’t forget the musical accompaniment!

Leon Brozyna
June 13, 2009 4:24 pm

Hmmmm – carbon offsets — crash & burn?

June 13, 2009 6:34 pm
I don’t know – this pap says we can’t afffect the “warming” that has already occurred…..what am I to think? LOL
Hunter -great video!

June 13, 2009 6:40 pm

You mean to tell me that Watts Up With That has put the big chill on Global Warming?
The rising sea level of skepticsim has inundated the Make-believe world of IPCC with science. The Goremobile is totaled.

Mike Bryant
June 13, 2009 6:57 pm

(Warning… this video contains the “D” word.)

June 13, 2009 7:00 pm

I’m sure they’ll have to ‘adjust’ the number of carbon offsets sold before 1900 – lower, of course – so the slope of the trend continues to rise. Hmm… could be a problem there.
Oh, wait! Just plot $Pre-1900 $Carbon $Offsets. See? No problem.
P.S. What [sarc] genius [sarc/] voluntarily bought the first carbon offset and what were they thinking?!?!

old construction worker
June 13, 2009 7:11 pm

hmmm interesting correlation.

Mike Bryant
June 13, 2009 7:12 pm

The spike of carbon offsets in early 2007 was probably due to purchases by Al Gore and Joe Romm…. they were “priming” the pump. It didn’t work…

June 13, 2009 7:16 pm

I’m sure they’ll have to ‘adjust’ the number of carbon offsets sold
Or find the right proxy.
How about the number of vehicles sporting ‘This vehicle is carbon neutral’, or similar, stickers.
That will conclusively show an expotential rise in the number of offsets sold.
Multiplying by the IQ of the driver will make doubly sure they have the right proxy.

Mike Bryant
June 13, 2009 7:39 pm

Recent paper published June 1 in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“Although the planet’s greenhouse gases . . . have become the villain in global warming scenarios, they’re crucial for a habitable world.”
“As the sun has matured over the past 4.5 billion years, it has become both brighter and hotter, . . . ”
“. . . we’re nearing the point where there’s not enough carbon dioxide left to regulate temperatures . . .”

June 13, 2009 7:43 pm

Mike Bryant,
Abso-friggin-lutely hilarious video.
M4GW is a great group, and I hope to hear more from them.

Solar Cooling
June 13, 2009 7:47 pm

I do enjoy Tom Nelson’s website. That man is a machine. How does he manage so many posts? Keep up the good work Tom!

Gordon Ford
June 13, 2009 8:02 pm

To my feeble mind Carbon Offsets are a wonderful invention and marketing opportunity.
When you close down a plant you can sell the carbon offsets.
When you go broke you can sell the carbon offsets
When you get a permit to build a plant and don’t you can sell the carbon offsets
Your country can go broke and the politicians can sell the carbon offsets, several times if they wish.
Check how many times the Ukraine has sold carbon offsets.
Carbon offsets are the highest quality marketing opportunity.
– They never existed!
– They have no identification marks!
– They have no serial number!
– They can be sold many times!
– And most important – There is no reputable regulator!!!!!
– Asset Backed Paper is a better investment opportunity. (If
you want to get some money back)
PSST – You wanna buy some carbon offsets???? I’m gonna someday plant an acre of trees and I’ll sell you the carbon offsets now real cheap.

June 13, 2009 8:07 pm

That WaPo report is scary:
Even if the international climate treaty due to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December is vastly more stringent and effective than the Kyoto Protocol, it will take decades to eliminate net global emissions. Warming seems inevitable; the only questions are its timing, distribution and severity. The effects may prove to be modest — but they could be severe or perhaps catastrophic.
Even strong advocates of limiting emissions have concluded that global emissions controls are likely to take effect too slowly and too unevenly to avoid substantial risk of severe damage — and that it would be prudent to pursue research on geoengineering.

June 13, 2009 8:23 pm

Tom in Texas,
The climate treaty is pointless because there is no problem for it to save us from.
Imagine being rail roaded into a dangerous brain surgery for a cancer that was not there. And then you are told that the surgery was not radical enough to help.

June 13, 2009 8:32 pm

Hunter: “Imagine being rail roaded into a dangerous brain surgery for a cancer that was not there. And then you are told that the surgery was not radical enough to help.” QOTW (Quote…)

David Ball
June 13, 2009 8:57 pm

Tom in Texas (20:32:53) “Gordon Ford, CARBON FUTURES”. And there you have the reason that no one is going to stop the Cap & Trade and carbon offset economy. It is too juicy a plum, an avalanche of “green ” as it were. No self respecting business man would pass on an opportunity to forge down this path to that cash cow (which does not even require an exchange of goods for that cash), which I believe is the point Gordon Ford was making. Makes me wonder if the modern day hippies realize they are responsible for lining the pockets of businessmen who claim to be able to fix this “climate problem”. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that a business should be profitable and capitalism is great and all, but paying money for what amounts to nothing (as nothing is returned other than the promise that some shlub is “going to plant some trees somewhere” . Then those trees will uptake C02 and produce oxygen over the lifetime of that tree ( that is what they tell you they are doing). The dollar signs are flashing in the eyes of the business juggernaut, and it seems unstoppable at this point. Poor maligned carbon (dioxide). Framed and sentenced to life for a crime it did not commit,…………

June 13, 2009 9:12 pm

Yaaay….. The Minnesotans FOR Global Warming.
Cool dudes that desperately wanna get warm-ing for real.
Minnesota is cold, damn cold…. I’ll chuck an extra fire brickette on the barbie for ya guys:-)

Gary Pearse
June 13, 2009 9:31 pm

Tom in Texas
I’m afraid there will be no changing of minds in Copenhagen even if we could skate across the Atlantic to attend. These guys are real upset about the horrifically cold winters lately and they don’t like being cornered. They are staring out at a forest of accusatory immobile windmills just offshore and not far away to the north of them there were a brace of Nobel prizes handed out. I understand that the prizes were left over from the bunch printed up for Arafat, Peres and Rabin for bringing peace to the Middle East and for Koffi Annan for preciding over the Rawandan Massacre and “Iraq Oil for Graft Program” run by his son, and there is no way to back out gracefully. I can’t see any other way out for them but to put together a mean wrathful document. Like the Global Warming, its too late to do anything to cool them off now.

Gary Pearse
June 13, 2009 9:33 pm

Oops, change presiding for “preciding”.

June 13, 2009 10:50 pm

I believe I have discovered a way to make carbon sequestration plausible and save the economy at the same time. It’s simple really. Every man, woman and child in the world buys a 12 pack of Coke and buries it in the backyard. Think of the impact of 96 billion cans of Coke being sequestered underground. Not only that, but at, let’s say, 33 cents a can, that’s a whopping $32 billion in incremental sales for the Coca Cola Company. Think of the jobs! And gosh knows it’s available. If there’s any country outside of North Korea that doesn’t have Coke I’d be stunned. OK, maybe everybody can’t afford it – those of us lucky enough to have luxury of feeling guilty can buy two 12 packs. A sure ticket to heaven.
The real genius of course is that when the globe cools everyone can go out to the background, pop open a now frosty one, and help to warm the planet with all that buried CO2. It works, or doesn’t, both ways. Is next year’s Noble prize still available?
[REPLY – Bury the Pepsi instead and I’m sold. ~ Evan]

June 13, 2009 10:55 pm

Ya know guys, my company produces virtual stock exchange software, who wants to have us set up a truly honest carbon trading system (i.e. not one that is really a carbon tax posing as cap and trade) to show how carbon futures will drop over time naturally by market action?

Dennis George
June 13, 2009 11:35 pm

Dear Anthony, I kow this is O/T but are you aware of the latest book from New Zealand titled
AIR CON The seriously inconvenient truth about global warming by Ian Wishart.
I have just finished reading it and it’s the best reference to climate realism I have come across.
WUWT and CLIMATE AUDIT are mentioned frequently and a number of your surface station photos are shown.
If I had the money, I would send a copy of this to each of your congressmen to put a stop to this nonsense.
The publishers are “Howl at the Moon Publishing Ltd” and their Email address is
Kind Regards
Dennis George
REPLY: Haven’t seen it yet. – Anthony

Jack Hughes
June 14, 2009 2:21 am

Good ideas coming from Cambridge Professor David Mackay on his site:
Here’s an extract:
The amount of energy saved by switching off the phone
charger, 0.01kWh, is exactly the same as the energy used by driving an
average car for one second. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t switch phone
chargers off. But don’t be duped by the mantra “every little helps.” Ob-sessively switching off the phone-charger is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. Do switch it off, but please be aware how tiny a gesture it is.
All the energy saved in switching off your charger for one day
is used up in one second of car-driving.
The energy saved in switching off the charger for one year is
equal to the energy in a single hot bath.
Your charger is only a tiny tiny fraction of your total energy consumption.
If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.
He’s got a great writing style and really spells out that we need some numbers and some calculations – not adjectives and feelings.
He does claim to be “right on” and in support of the global yawning hypothesis – but I wonder. Maybe he feels he’ll get a bigger and more receptive audience by playing along but trying to bring some realism. Softly, softly, catchee monkey.

Frank Lansner
June 14, 2009 2:23 am

These internet trends are extremely important as they reflect reality.
Here is the fractions of US population who believes that global warming is mainly due to human activities:
(pct jan 2008 from Gallup, the rest from Rassmussen)
Giss global temperatures has since 2002 got very much hotter than RSS (and UAH).
In this period the trend is 0,2Kelvin / decade.
This is a huge number compared to the global warming of the 20´th century, 0,6K.

June 14, 2009 3:26 am

I’m hearing here and there this idea that carbon dating (measuring carbon-14 from various sources) proves that humans have caused the increase in CO2 that we’ve seen in the 20th century and since then, due to industrial activity. This came up in an online discussion I was having with someone, who I’m assuming for the moment is a college science professor, who believes in AGW. I also saw a reference to this notion in a Yahoo Answers discussion talking about “my brothers assignment on global warming” at
What the professor believes is that CO2 levels were stable for a very long time before industrialization (I guess he doesn’t trust the geologic record), and non-radioactive carbon is now higher than in pre-industrial times and this proves that the rise in CO2 we’ve seen is due to industrialization. The idea being that the non-radioactive carbon is coming from fossil fuels, whose carbon-14 has long since dissipated.
I tried looking online for a source of this analysis and all I could find was information which talked about how carbon-14 is an indicator of solar variability through time, and helps in tracing the vectors of CO2 through various Earth systems.
Also, the professor said that past climatic changes, before industrialization, were caused by changes in Earth’s orbit, which happened on a regular, predictable basis. I’ve heard this theory before. It’s a theory based on sedimentary evidence, and the conclusion one draws from it is we should be entering into another ice age, but climate forcing is preventing it.
Does anyone know what he’s talking about with regard to carbon dating? Where would I look these things up? In your professional opinions, speaking to the scientists here, do these theories have validity?

June 14, 2009 5:48 am

Mark Miller,
Who cares where the carbon came from, if the AGW models about what it is doing are wrong?
AGW is not about CO2. AGW is about using CO2 to impose changes on society.
We had an experience with what happens when a social movement highjacks science and gets a lot popular support.
It is called ‘eugenics’
Eugenics turned out really, really badly.

Alan F.
June 14, 2009 6:20 am

The GWA’s use the term “belief” more often than a televangelist ever has. It would be interesting to compare whether the Pope has even used that particular term more so than Jabba the Gore.
Try the acid test. If it ever uses the term “deniers” in place of actual data or responds with sarcasm rather than more data in its defense, it fell from the back end of some evil bovine methane factory.

Indiana Bones
June 14, 2009 7:14 am

chip (22:50:54) :
The mind boggles at the franchise opportunities. You have my vote for a WUWT honorary MBA.

June 14, 2009 7:55 am

O’T possibly
This e-mail, arrived, on my computer today. I’ve studied it carefully and can’t see any down side to the offer. Should I go for it?
Dear Friend,
I am writing to you today, to ask for help. I am the only UN climate scientist in my village and have just received my annual carbon-credit allowance from the Chad government.
Due to an administrative error I was given $US 50 billion worth, rather than the $50 I was expecting.
I have tried to give it back to the chief-clerk of my district but he refuses to listen. I think he is too embarrassed to admit he made a mistake.
I am due to go to Copenhagen later this year but because of the rocketing cost of black-market charcoal for cooking since it was banned, I will have less to spend than many of my more fortunate colleagues from wealthier countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
I don’t want to go through the humiliations that I suffered in Bali, where I was forced to retire to the bathroom, when it was my round to buy the drinks!
I would like you, to help me dispose of some of my unwanted carbon-credits. I am not a greedy man and because you are my friend, I want you to BOGOF (Buy one, get one free).
For every $US 1 you give me, I will give you $US 2 of credits. I hear you cry – I don’t have much money since I got laid off. I can barely pay for gas and electric these days.
That’s OK, you and I are friends, and this is what I will do for you.
First, I transfer $US 2 million of credits into your bank account – your bank manager will convert this into, at least, $US 1.5 million (Let him keep the difference!).
With this, you buy more credits and we both get rich real soon. Maybe we can have a drink together in Copenhagen.
Sound good to you, yes, let’s get started. Give me your bank details and $US 500 and I’ll set it all up.
Thank you my, soon-to-be rich, friend.
Note: I’ve withheld the e-mail address for the obvious reason that, I don’t want others stealing my action!
Repy: Nice job. Are you familiar with 419 Eater? ~ charles the moderator

layne Blanchard
June 14, 2009 8:10 am

You know, the more I read, the better this carbon offset biz sounds! To think I’ve been pulling seedlings out of the yard, and I can now throw em in a pot, and sell them off for Millions! The value of pine nuts is gonna skyrocket!

Gordon Ford
June 14, 2009 8:13 am

David Ball :- I may resent being called a shulb if I knew what it was.
Clear cutting the forest to plant trees so you can sell the carbon credits to guilt ridden airline passengers is a booming business here in BC. (see link below)The Alder that they are clear cutting is a beautiful hardwood that I used to do all the wood trim in our house. It is also an initial tree in the northwest coastal forest serial sucession. It is a nitrogen fixer thus perparing the way for a healthy conifer forest.

Robert Austin
June 14, 2009 9:08 am

Mark Miller (03:26:19) :
It’s not radioactive carbon 14 that is used to assert that man’s burning of fossil fuels has increased the concentration in the atmosphere. It is the ratio of stable isotopes carbon 12 and carbon 13 that is used to make the assertion. Apparently, the ratio of the two isotopes is slightly different in fossil fuels than it is in the present atmosphere. The hypothesis is that one can determine man’s CO2 contribution by measuring changes to the atmospheric carbon 12 & 13 isotope ratio.

June 14, 2009 9:54 am

Print up your own carbon offsets: click
I’ve already awarded myself 685 million, so I’m good to go.

John Shoesmith
June 14, 2009 11:49 am

Carbon offsets are for wimps. I am issuing guaranteed certificates good for one degree of global cooling per 100 years for a paltry $10,000. Think of it for a $100 a year you can reduce the worlds temperature. For less than $2 a week you can have the peace of mind of knowing that you have done your bit to save the world without any risk. If after a 100 years the global temperature has not decreased acrording to my scientific mathematical model all you have to do is to present your certificate in person to our head office and we will give you a 100% refund
Sign up now

Frank Ravizza
June 14, 2009 1:53 pm


June 14, 2009 3:10 pm

Thanks for the response about my carbon sequestration plan. Before I substitute Pepsi for Coke, though, I need to ask the Obama administration which brand they want to favor with a subsidy. I’ll bury whichever one nets me the most from the gov. I like this idea – it just seems to be getting better and better.

Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 14, 2009 3:42 pm

Mark Miller (03:26:19) :
There are two parts in the 14C story: as fossil fuels are completely depleted of 14C (14C is only detectable up to about 60,000 years), the carbon dating after about 1870 was affected. Therefore correction tables needed to be used to correct for the “false” readings, making the carbon date older than in reality.
In the period 1950-1960 a lot of open air nuclear tests were done. This increased the 14C level in the atmosphere substantially. Again new correction tables were needed, now following the rapid increase and more slowly decline of 14C in the atmosphere, due to these tests and the exchange rates with the oceans. The latter show a decline of about 5 years half life time for the residence time of 14C in the atmosphere.
But 14C is not the only “proof” for humans as origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 13C ratio, oxygen depletion, the mass balance, the pCO2 and pH of the oceans, all point to the same origin… See for a comprehensive analysis:

Dave Wendt
June 14, 2009 3:44 pm

I may be letting my desperation for any glimpse of light at the end of this tunnel lead me to speculate beyond the evidence, but there may be signs of positive developments in this Google trends search. If you look at the list of the top ten cities in the world for Google hits on” WUWT”,,
the second city on the list is Washington, D.C.. This could hopefully indicate that, even inside the Beltway, people are finally awakening to the notion that inflicting grievous harm on the economies of America and the world in response to unsupported speculation is not the political win-win situation they’ve envisioned. Unfortunately, in the mode of every silver lining come wrapped in a black cloud, on the top ten list for Google hits for “carbon offsets” D.C. comes in first.

Gordon Ford
June 14, 2009 4:09 pm

Smokey;- Thanks for the link.
I went the full trillion tonnes cause in todays Obama world, “whats a trillion?”

June 14, 2009 4:33 pm

The reason I asked about the C-14/C-12,C-13 ratio is my understanding has been that CO2 from industrial sources has been so tiny as to be background noise, about 5% of the 383ppm CO2 concentration. If as this “professor” (that’s still my operating assumption) said this ratio shows that the CO2 increase we’ve seen is due (perhaps solely–he suggests that) to industrial activity, then that changes what I thought I knew about this aspect of the debate, and it might change my POV on the AGW issue. For if the CO2 increase was solely due to industry then that means the amount of it could continue increasing ever upward, and we could project that while CO2 hasn’t had an effect on climate in the past, it would in the future with higher and higher concentrations. I was just trying to clear that up for myself.
The information I had initially indicated that natural variability was the controlling factor, and if that’s the case then trying to control it ourselves is futile.
I’m always willing to question what I know if I’m given good reason to do that. If this information about carbon dating turns out to be inconsequential, then that’s another idea on the trash heap as far as I’m concerned.
Alan F:
I’m not sure if you were referring to what I said, but I was the one who used the term “believe”, not the person I was talking about. He is quite convinced he has the evidence to back up what he says, though getting him to talk about the evidence has been like pulling teeth.

Robert Austin
June 14, 2009 8:32 pm

Mark Miller (16:33:55) :
I think if I recall correctly that the IPCC estimates that about half of man’s CO2 emissions show up as an increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2 and the rest disappears into the system (possibly dissolves in oceans, biological uptake etc.) So your scenario of the total of man’s CO2 emissions going entirely to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is not even a mainstream AGW hypothesis.
But say it was true. Your fears of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 going ever upward is not possible when you realize there is a limited amount of fossil fuels available to burn. The carbon in fossil fuels is miniscule compared to the vast carbon storage in sedimentary rocks and carbon compounds dissolved in the oceans. Without the existance of a fabled positive feedback factor in the computer climate models, you could burn all the CO2 from all the world’s fossil fuel reserves and would not change the climate significantly. In a way, it is a mote point as to whether man is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere if the increase has little effect on climate.
Remember that the global temperature response to CO2 increase is approximately logarithmic within present and projected concentrations. Each doubling of concentration yields a more or less linear temperature increase. In at the present concentration of 380 ppm, CO2 doubling would increase the global temperature about 1C thereabouts, depending on who you read. And the next doubling would yield the same 1C increase. We expend all fossil fuels long before we would burn up the earth. Projections of disastrously larger increases in global temperature depend on the supposition of a positive feedback factor for which there appears to be very weak scientific justification to date.

June 14, 2009 11:17 pm
June 14, 2009 11:26 pm

But 14C is not the only “proof” for humans as origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But the proof is not as strong as claimed. If the oceans are evolving CO2 and man injects a significant amount in the atmosphere it will look like man is responsible because the addition of man made CO2 will suppress some evolution of CO2 from the ocean due to the partial pressure balance.

June 15, 2009 4:45 am

Robert Austin:
I have heard of this logarithmic temperature response to increased CO2. Bob Carter talked about it, and he said “This is not controversial”. Your factoid about there being vastly more carbon held in sedimentary rocks than in fossil fuel reserves does help me put this in perspective. The alarmists keep talking about the “limited carrying capacity” (that’s my term) of various carbon sinks.
The reason I got into this at all was over a 5% figure I used for industrial contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere. I remember hearing at least one non-alarmist climatologist giving a figure like this.
I tried getting this “professor” (I’m assuming) to look at contrary evidence, such as the Medieval warm period, or the temperature decline from the 1940s to the 1970s (while CO2 concentration was rising), and he ignored it every time. He kept going back to a “time correlation” between the rise in non-radioactive CO2 to the rise in temperature, as if that proved the whole thing. He used terms like “scientifically proven” and “fact” for this.
At first he didn’t even talk about the “carbon dating” technique. He just said it was “reasonable” to link the two (rise in CO2 with temperature), and that there was a 21% increase in CO2 from the 19th century up to the present day, and that it was totally attributable to industrialization. I said that statement was just as valid as the Aztecs saying that the Sun rose because they made a human sacrifice to it every day. I thought the analogy was very apt–correlation with human action. It’s scary to think that there might be scientists who think like this. My science teachers in school taught us to be wary of drawing conclusions from correlations. Apparently he didn’t get that.
Anyway, the thing about “carbon dating” proving what he was talking about grabbed my attention, because I had never heard of it before. After getting some clarification on here I think he was confused about the terminology. I was looking at information on carbon-14 measurement (which is what one would naturally look for when looking up “carbon dating”) when I should’ve been looking at the ratio between carbon-12 and 13. I did find an article on “Real Climate” that talks about this ratio (at This may have been where he got his information. It draws the same conclusion about time correlation, and references some (offline) journal articles that talk about the data.
Thanks to all. I got a lot more helpful and accurate information from you guys than I did from the “professor”.

June 15, 2009 8:57 am

You’ll all be pleased to know, that Tokyo’s bid for the 2016 Olympic Games, includes a promise to be not just Carbon Neutral, but Carbon Minus!
“The Yumenoshima landfill will be an 88-hectare island in Tokyo Bay with compost made from fallen leaves and twigs gathered in the public parks and streets of Tokyo. The trash landfill will be transformed into a green forest where 480,000 trees will be planted, in addition to the sports venues located on the island.[”
Saw a long trailer for it on Eurosport earlier today, boy did I laugh when I watched it and heard their promise of “Carbon Minus”

George E. Smith
June 15, 2009 2:40 pm

Well there is more to C14 abundance than just fossil fuel burning. It so happens that C14 is manufatured in the first place by cosmic rays, out of nitrogen. It used to be assumed that c14 production in the atmosphere was absolutely constant. Thatw as the whole basis for radio-carbon dating.
Well the bristlecne pines of eastern California proved that C14 production is anything but constant; and world histories were rewritten as a result of that re-calibration of the C14 time scale.
So c14 variations could be nothing more than the now known wide variation in cosmic ray flux on earth.
Also the C12/C13 isotope mix doesn’t prove that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel burning. ALL that it shows is that a newer source of carbon, that may have an anomalous C13/C12 ratio, is being introduced into the atmosphere. There’s no way to prove that any specific C12 or C13 molecule came from a fossil fuel or from soem other source.
If we started burning a new source of fossil fuel that contained 5% of Argon, and we just vented the argon, then the atmospheric argon abundance would increase; which doesn’t prove that all of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from our new fossil fuel/argon source; just that we are burning some of it.
Besides fossil fuels are supposed to be old plants aren’t they; so why would they have a carbon signature that is different from modern wood or other natural sources of carbon.
Isotope ratios get a lot more hype than they deserve. The isotope carbon ratio in carbonate rocks should reflect what was in ancient oceans and their ancient aquatic life forms.
Which does not mean that I don’t accept that human use of fossil fuels may be increasing atmospheric CO2; but by how much compared to other sources like the mediaeval warming period 800 years ago.
All of which is irrelevent anyway, because CO2 from whatever source has very little to do with the climate of the earth. so who cares where it comes from.
CO2 sequestration is also oxygen sequestration.
Besides anew study shows that the earth is slowly running out of cO2, and eventually the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be so low, that plants and eventually all life on earth will simply sufficate. They are proposing to reduce the earth’s atmospheric pressure to create a higher altitude atmosphere in which we apparently can get by with less CO2.
This new CO2 suffocation disaster, will hit the planet between 100 million and 1 billion years from now. So we better get ready for living with a lower atmospheric pressure.

June 15, 2009 5:25 pm

Mark Miller,
Grant the AGW community their CO2, all of it: So what?
CO2 is not terribly high, and their amplification theory is not working.
The climate response has been to muddle around the margins of error, well within natural variability.
Even if we are, by way of CO2 driving this current climate, so what?
Nothing much is happening that is not within normal ranges of climate.
There is no existential threat developing, or even threatening to to develop, from this.
From temperature to storms to ice to droughts to seal levels to oceanic pH, not one thing is happening that is according to the AGW promotion predictions.
The Earth climate system has proven itself over the megayears to be able to handle fluctuating forcings.
If it turns out that CO2 levels have not been driven by Anthro CO2, so be it and so what?
Forcings are forcings, whether they are man caused CO2, man caused land use change, vegetation secession, solar fluctuations. A given forcing, as far as its heat and temp change, will have the same impact as any other forcing.
The Earth has endured, life has triumphed, I see no reason for that to change because we have made the planet better for humans by burning fossil fuels.

June 15, 2009 10:34 pm

I read the Real Climate article and I was disappointed, because I thought of the same thing you did: How can one say that the lower C-13/C-12 ratio can be isolated to the burning of fossil fuels, except by the coincidence of timing as they claim? I thought they were going to include C-14 in the analysis, but they didn’t really.
The way I’ve picked out good scientific theories in the past is if the scientists presenting them can connect the dots: “A leads to B leads to C”. They can show the chain of cause and effect, either based on known phenomena or measurements. I’ve never seen this with the AGW crowd. What I’ve proposed to them is if they really want to prove their point they should measure all of the outputs both man-made and natural. This could be done in a statistically valid way since measuring every single source would be next to impossible. With the man-made sources they could look at inputs of fossil fuels (they could look at historical company records) and calculate outputs of CO2. They could check the output calculations against the actual measurement of CO2 to see if they’re conception of outputs is good. They could look at the Earth as a giant operating system, and take that sort of analytical approach to it, accounting for and isolating specific carbon categories. I agree it would be complex, maybe too complex for us humans to analyze. Maybe computers could help, but not in the way they’ve been used, which is just fooling ourselves. If and when they got this right then they could say that X% is man-made, and Y% is natural. By only looking at the C-13/C-12 ratios it seems to me they’re only looking at effects that could be caused by a number of factors, but they assume (again) that it must only come from one source. I wouldn’t know unless I actually look at the papers. Some of the science may be good in terms of adding some knowledge to what we know, but the conclusion sounds suspicious.
I’ve run into the same thing you’ve talked about that “there is no unique signature for industrial carbon” when talking to others who believe in AGW. Several years ago I ran into this curious argument about how ethanol was “carbon-neutral”, which has turned out to be the biggest joke, because it’s anything but, due to the amount of energy that goes into corn ethanol production. But before the ethanol subsidies went into place I finally asked these people, “Why is ethanol more carbon-neutral than oil? Plants can’t tell the difference between carbon that comes from ethanol and what comes from fossil fuels.” I didn’t get an answer. It all turned out to be marketing hype.

Pamela Gray
June 16, 2009 1:46 pm

To me it says that a bunch of people googled cap and trade, discovered quickly that it was a pyramid scheme (or to that affect) and returned to their day jobs. WUWT seems to have been an outgrowth of people toiling away at their day jobs and wanted to have a serious conversation about the pyramid scheme’s faulty premis. But by and large, after the initial curiosity peaked, most people are simply getting up every day, going to work, coming home, watching TV, and then going to bed, to repeat it tomorrow.

Verified by MonsterInsights