Physicist says fossil fuel burning is insignificant in the global carbon pool

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement, calling it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon’.

He writes this in an essay on science trust issues plus adds this powerful closing passage about climate science:

And there is a thorough critique of the science as band wagon trumpeting and interested self-deception [4]. Climategate only confirms what should be obvious to any practicing scientist: That science is a mafia when it’s not simply a sleeping pill.

Now he thinks that fossil fuel burning isn’t a problem of significance based on the scale. Excerpts below.

Is the burning of fossil fuel a significant planetary activity?

by Denis G. Rancourt

This essay was first posted on the Activist Teacher blog.

After all, the Earth is a planet. Is even the presence of humans significant on the rough and diverse thin surface of this planet?

We certainly make every effort to see ourselves as significant on this spinning ball in space. We like to point out that the lights from our cities can be seen from our extra-atmospheric “spaceships” at night and that we have deforested continents and reduced the populations of large wild mammals and of fishes but is all this really significant in the planetary web known as the biosphere?

INSIGNIFICANCE OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING ENERGY RELEASE

The present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y). GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet. And of course all biomass can in principle be considered fuel that could be burned with oxygen (O2) to produce CO2 gas, H2O water, energy, and an ash residue.

This shows the extent to which anthropogenic energy production from fossil fuel burning is small in comparison to the sun’s energy delivery to Earth, since biomass primary production results from the sun’s energy via photosynthesis.

In summary, the total amount of post-industrial fossil fuel burned to date (and expressed as kilograms of carbon) represents less than 1% of the global bio-available carbon pools.

More importantly, bio-available carbon is a minor constituent of the Earth’s surface environment and one that is readily buffered and exchanged between compartments without significant consequences to the diversity and quantity of life on the planet. The known history of life on Earth (over the last billions of years) is unambiguous on this point.

This ocean acidification side show on the global warming science bandwagon, involving major nation research centers and international collaborations, is interesting to compare with the 1970s-1980s hoax of boreal forest lake acidification. [1][2]

More importantly, scientists know virtually nothing about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planet’s ecological systems. We are barely at the point of being able to ask intelligent questions.

For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.

====================================

Here’s a video interview:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I am sure all the carbon lifeforms, you know those that depend on Photosynthesis or Cellular Respiration for their lives.
What we know, you can write a paper, what we don’t know would fill many giant libraries.

Chuck

Yes! Thank, You.
We need to hear this more often.

Enneagram

The green agenda has the same purposes and goals than the promotion and enforcing of land reform all over the world: To avoid the formation and promote the disappearance, of local elites who could endanger the power of the international speculative elite.

De Rode Willem

I fear this is nonsens. Dangerous nonsens. It is rather simple…take the global fossile fuel consuption and calculate theoretically how much CO2 that will produce. The simple chemical equation is sufficiant. Then calculate the volume of the earth atmosphere…also not a very difficult exercise. Then it is very easy to calculate the concentration impact of that fossile fuel burning. OK no ocean absorption… and no other phenomena…But even then it is very obvious that fossile fuel burning HAS a impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration….whatever references and diploma’s that professor may have.

Douglas DC

“For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.”
There are members of that liberal elite that fear healthy, happy, prosperous ,
dark skinned people. This is refreshing…

Bob from the UK

Excellent, great to hear some sense from a highly respected scientist.

J Hekman

Who are his colleagues? Who will he convince? Up to this point, the AGW empire has remained intact; only a few flecks of paint have been chipped off. If more scientists come out to speak the truth, that could change. Rancourt’s brave words will only help if others who respect him for his past work are influenced.

Lets hear it for Denis Rancourt. It is time for others to speak out. I think his statement: “More importantly, scientists know virtually nothing about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planet’s ecological systems. We are barely at the point of being able to ask intelligent questions.” is right on the money. Something I have believed and said myself many times. Something many readers here have as well.
It is not just because we agree with Dr. Rancourt that he is correct though. If one truly adheres to the scientific method and its philosophical principals no other conclusion is possible.
From one scientist to another, good on you brother.

Jim G

De Rode Willem says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:54 am
“I fear this is nonsens. Dangerous nonsens. It is rather simple…take the global fossile fuel consuption and calculate theoretically how much CO2 that will produce. The simple chemical equation is sufficiant. Then calculate the volume of the earth atmosphere…also not a very difficult exercise. Then it is very easy to calculate the concentration impact of that fossile fuel burning. OK no ocean absorption… and no other phenomena…But even then it is very obvious that fossile fuel burning HAS a impact on the atmospheric CO2 concentration….whatever references and diploma’s that professor may have.”
I fear this is “nonsens” as, though one may calculate the amount of CO2 added, the resultant “concentration” and “impact” are quite a different story due to all of the other variables operating to increase and decrease the resultant concentration. The the impact which that has upon climate is another huge leap due to all of the other variables affecting climate.
Nonsense, indeed!

Joe Crawford

Ah…. another sane voice crying in the wilderness. I don’t know about Canada, but if he were in the US he just stepped off the funding marry-go-round. He looks too young to retire.
You know science is on the fast track to self destruction when theories, postulates, opinions and research approaches that deviate the slightest bit from current theory are no longer even considered acceptable ‘cocktail party conversation’ by the “consensus”. I guess that’s all we can expect from government funded (controlled?) research.

Jackie

WUWT recently asked what the Warmist’s next name would be after ‘Global Climate Disruption’ would fail. And there were many good replies.
But in reality history will define the whole climate change debacle as the first truly “corrupt social networking phenomenon” primarily associated with the internet. Climate change is not a clearly defined conspiracy theory, it is exactly what Rancourt describes above, a corrupt social phenomenon gaining legs via like minded
apocalyptic scientists seeking each other out over the internet. The corruption only getting exhibited later when the collective groupthink quickly excluded those that begged to differ with their cult.
The only name left for this true Warmist sect is ‘Global Apocalyptic Climate’.

I liked and encouraged getting a handle on smog and pollution and am thankfull for the environmental cleanup push that has resulted in such improvement. I think now that the environmental movement has been hijacked by the control freaks and those who think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. My lowest iq test was 128, low in comparison to most of the posters on this site yet quite adequate to follow the ideas espoused, and I resent the idea that I need my actions of an environmental nature regulated!

Roy UK

De Rode Willem says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:54 am
… “it is very easy to calculate the concentration impact of that fossile fuel burning.” …
You do not even need to do the calculations yourself, they have been done for you.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on these figures. But I don’t suppose we will.

Bill Yarber

De Rode
Yes, human burning of fossil fuels have put more CO2 into the atmosphere. But it is trivial compared to natural sources. Fortunately, natural sinks (biomass), absorb 99.+% of natural plus human CO2 emmissions. What you are ignoring is that our oceans, which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, is the largest source and sink of CO2 – far exceeding all other sources, including human produced CO2!
Time is on the skeptics side. None of the AGW computer models have been close over the past 12+ years. The longer we can prevent the AGW crowd from squandering untold trillions of dollars on worthless remedies, which hurt our economies and daily lives while having zero impact on our Earth’s climate, the better off all humans will be over the coming century!
AGW is a scam, the largest and most destructive ever foisted on humanity!
Bill Yarber

Elliott

@johnmcguire:
The “environmental cleanup” has essentially consisted of shutting down manufacturing in the U.S. and shipping it to Asia.

John R. Walker

Little to disagree with on the science and the insignificance of man on the face of this planet, but I think Dr. Rancourt has misunderstood the political significance and intent behind carbon trading.
As constructed, both the UN and the EU systems are designed to move both production and capital from the developed First World to the less developed world as part of the loony left’s utopian egalitarian dream that I would have thought he would actually be in favour of…
I don’t have a problem with raising up the Third World but I really don’t want to do it by destroying what we have built over decades here in the developed world and that is precisely what capping and/or taxing CO2 production out of existence is doing.
It is actually the developed states, and their peoples, which are being undemocratically managed and controlled – not the other way round…

wolfwalker

Is even the presence of humans significant on the rough and diverse thin surface of this planet?
Hmm… Seems like he meant this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one.
That’s enough right there to put him firmly in the “nutcase” category. Humans have devastated the natural order of things over most of the globe. With the possible exception of the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, there isn’t a square mile of land that hasn’t been seriously affected by human action, going back at least two thousand years and probably more than fifteen thousand.

simplesekeraftertruth

This we know already!
Seemingly insignificant additions to atmospheric CO2 as causative of increasing temperatures through ‘feedback’ is where the real argument lies. On this, Dr. Denis Rancourt says;
“There is no justification beyond conjecture for the “amplification hypothesis”.”
If Dr. Rancourt can nail that one then he can save mankind from the folly that he so accurately (IMHO) describes.

Mikael Pihlström

Well, I can top that: I will officially bail out from the US Supreme Court.
OK, I have never been a member, but that doesn’t take away the
significance of my action.
Denis G. Rancourt is a physicist
“His most cited works are in the area of Mössbauer spectroscopy where he
developed a spectral lineshape analysis algorithm” (Wikipedia).
He is engaged in various disputes over university pedagogy since 2005
and a climate sceptic since 2007. What’s the news here?

Djozar

Dr. Denis Rancourt gives a very nice summary of what I have expected all along. If we can get by all the CAGW nonsense, maybe we can get back to tackling real environmental and energy issues.

johnmcguire says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:17 am
I agree with you John, clean up the smog and other pollutants. Below is a link to a UN blurb stating that we have successfully turned the corner on the ozone hole, and it should close by 2048.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html
I think it’s successes such as the above that frighten the scare mongers the most, the issues we all largely agree on (sustainability, bio-diversity, pollution) are being addressed, and they have only CO2 left to control the agenda.
Nice to read Dr. Rancourt putting his neck on the line for sanity. All the best for his future funding.

red432

Depressing. Everywhere I’ve been I’ve seen cronyism, nepotism, power politics, manipulated data, fudged data, invented data, ignored data, intractable cognitive dissonance, and con games. Whistle blowers are punished. Somewhere there must be some exceptions — maybe aeronautical engineering? Airplanes sometimes stay up in the air, somehow.

rbateman

One hundred parts per million in 100 years, roughly.
Wow, we sure know how to make a splash, don’t we?

GregL

The conclusion that human CO2 emissions contribute insignificantly to CO2 accumulations is defective. The human effect is the result of both emissions and removals due to the carbon cycle. The author claims to know nothing about removals due to the carbon cycle. So lets just look at the empirical evidence.
CO2 concentrations are going up. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Because of isotope ratios, we know that human fossil fuel sourced CO2 is accumulating.
Conclusion: global warming is our fault.

bbttxu

We contribute 8% of the whole of GPP on earth by burning fossil fuel. It’s an interesting way to reverse the argument. If anthropogenic sources are part of the whole, then they can’t be adding anything to the whole! Good thing we came along, otherwise the earth would forever only have 92% of the carbon it’s supposed to have!
I was hoping to find evidence that 1) CO2 levels were not increasing and 2) that the additional increase wasn’t man-made. The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing (and measured) and it’s not natural (evidenced by isotopic C fractionation).
It’s true that CO2 in the atmosphere was much greater in the past, but we don’t live in the past. It’s also thanks to those CO2 rich time periods that we enjoy the fuel (dutifully sequestered all these millions of years) that we have been using over the past 200 years, and probably use up in the next 100 or so more.

k winterkorn

This is excellent.
A small percent change in the 95% of CO2 production due to non-human sources (bacteria, fungi, insects, etc) could clearly dwarf the small changes in human production. A naturally warming planet will have more bacteria, fungi, and insects, and they will each become more active, just as CO2 production clearly rises in the summer and falls in the winter.
It is sophistry to claim that the science, even on the production of CO2 on Earth, is settled. The science is in its infancy.

Brownedoff

The link above the smoke stack photograph takes you to:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-burning-of-fossil-fuel-significant.html
The links on the righthand side of the page lead to some very interesting articles.
Well worth a visit.

Roger Clague

De Rode Willem says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:54 am
‘It is rather simple…’
Explaining the increase in atmospheric CO2 is simple if you ignore the much larger parts of the carbon cycle, such as biomass, oceans and volcanos. This what Engelbeen did in his recent attempt to justify the IPCC theory that attributes the CO2 increase to fossil fuel burning.
Dr. Rancourt does not deny any effect; he says the effect is insignificant.

John Whitman

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt addresses the lack of sufficient AGW (or much less CAGW) science that is actually of the “settled” or “consensus” variety. Thank you.
Maybe some humor on uncertainty and doom/gloom is in order. I posted this over at Bishop’s blog a few hours ago, addressed originally to Josh.
——————–
Above the doorway entrance to the IPCC’s HQ office should be an engraved plaque with the following quote inscribed:
“`all hope abandon, ye who enter here of assessing uncertainty in climate science”
[With my sincere apologies to Dante Alighieri]
Above the exit doorway of the IPCC’s HQ office should be a plaque with:
=> a smiley face labeled: “Have a nice apocalyptic CAGW day!”
John

Enneagram

THINK!, have you noticed that every green proposition is tanatic?, enthropic, against Eros, against Life itself?.
Their dream world: A Giant mountain of human compost!
Life is Nature´s “trick” to overcome Death
Let us awake!
They are the preachers of Thanatos, the pontifices of doom, the church of Negation, proclaiming the Gospel of Hate!
Then, we may sing:
Love is a many-splendored thing,
It’s the April rose that only grows in the early spring,
Love is nature’s way of giving,
a reason to believing,
The Golden crown that makes a Man a King.

Doctor Gee

Noting that his title indicates he is a “former” professor, I am sure that his comments will be dismissed by the liberal elite as the mere ramblings of a disgruntled crank. Alas, he will likely become a passing footnote marginalized, if necessary, by the same tired ad hominem attacks should he attempt to step out any further of his “place.”

Francisco

Anthony,
Denis Rancourt’s first and most comprehensive essay on Global Warming came out in 2007, shocking many leftists.
This is the introduction:
“Global warming is often presented as the greatest potential threat to humankind and as the greatest environmental and ecological threat on the planet. It is also presented as a problem that could be solved or contained by determined international collaboration – by political will if it were present.
I argue: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around), (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.
I also advance that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat (global warming myth, for short). I describe these motivations in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.
I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.
Full article is here:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

bbttxu

Mr. Rancourt comments on his blog “Just because many other factors were different one billion years ago say, does not invalidate this comparisons because the main factors were the same (same planet, same biomass, diverse life, same slowly evolving sun, same large latitudinal variations in incident irradiance, etc.)” http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-burning-of-fossil-fuel-significant.html#c974336068943468367
As a physicist, he can be forgiven for not knowing much paleontology, but not all things were the same a billion years ago…

Ken Hall

“The present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y)”

I have had a heated discussion about this, perhaps the good readers of this blog can help.
Is this an 8% addition of human generated CO2, compounding annually? Or is 8% of all CO2 the human contribution?
As I am led to believe from the alarmists, the natural balance of CO2 has had an approximate equilibrium for many centuries. That is to say that the enormous amount of CO2 nature produced each year, was matched by nature in absorbing CO2.
Now, mankind is adding a small amount annually to the natural production of CO2 and each year our additions push this equilibrium further out of balance. Is this a correct interpretation of what is happening?
Alarmists also claim that CO2 was relatively stable at 200PPM prior to the industrial revolution, but now the current concentration of CO2 is 380PPM.
SO getting to the crux of my heated discussion, has our 8% been an on-going annual addition which has, over 150 years, almost doubled the concentration from 200 to 380PPM? Or is the total man-made percentage of current total CO2, only 8%? Meaning that the near doubling of CO2 from 200ppm – 380ppm is almost entirely natural?
Which view is correct?
I am of the belief that the small addition every year is compounding and although now only 8% of the CO2 produced each year is of human origin, that is still an amount above which natural processes cannot absorb and so the total CO2 still increases and so most, if not all of the increase from 200ppm – 380ppm is caused by man’s additional annual contribution, (even allowing for a short carbon cycle). This is as far as I go in agreeing with Alarmists, as I do not believe that doubling CO2 will cause a massive increase in global temperatures. I think it will have a small effect, but nowhere near the catastrophic scenarios of the Alarmists.

Vince Causey

“We contribute 8% of the whole of GPP on earth by burning fossil fuel.”
I thought it was 4%. Has it recently shot up?

RW

You’ve only just the other day hosted Ferdinand Engelbeen, patiently explaining how it is know, beyond all possible doubt, that fossil fuel burning has caused a 40% rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
So why do you post this article promoting obviously mistaken views? To be deliberately rude to Ferdinand Engelbeen? To show that you did not understand his article? Just to be contrary?
Also I note again the tendency of disbelievers to use a bizarre royal we: “We are barely at the point of being able to ask intelligent questions”. He’s certainly not talking about climate scientists, because he is not a climate scientist. I presume that he means “I am” where he says “we are”
[REPLY – Differing views are permitted here. Personally, I happen to side with Ferdinand, but that doesn’t mean I can’t hear arguments from all sides and not take it as an insult. ~ Evan]

FrankSW

He calculates that CO2 generated by Fossil fuel burning is comparable to the CO2 exumed by humans and their domestic animals. In one of his previous blogs he says
“Furthermore, if we consider that all living things breathe (admittedly some microbes don’t breathe oxygen) and that Earth’s (living) biomass is approximately 10^15 kg-C, then total global breathing may well exceed the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning by a factor of between ten and one thousand times greater.”
Quite a wide margin, but he says ants for instance have ten time our biomass, but even at the low end it puts our contribution to CO2 generation into perspective.

John Whitman

bbttxu says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:20 am
As a physicist, he [Rancourt] can be forgiven for not knowing much paleontology, but not all things were the same a billion years ago…

———————
bbttxu,
Please clarify.
Are you implying the laws of physics were not the same a billion years ago?
Are you implying that we don’t know anything about the earth system a billion years ago and cannot compare to today’s earth systems?
Are you implying physicists can’t understand the science of paleontology? Even when the principle science used by paleontology is physics (and the derivative science of chemistry)?
John

The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate
Just running the numbers

On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
All because CO2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

Maxbert
thebuckwheat

“For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.”
This is misplaced hyperbole. Human history is clear: states have used credit expansion (inflation of their currency) to finance war, either to deflect some domestic issue away from the ruling elites, or to seek economic domination over others.
But that was before the widespread adoption of welfare socialism by the west. Now governments use credit expansion to finance government spending on social programs. They in effect go to war against private holders of assets to gain resources to spread around to others in a frantic effort to retain power.
(And the biggest recent scheme of credit expansion was Fannie and Freddie via the Community Reinvestment Act. It amounted to about twice the size of the bailouts for the banks.)
The weapons of this new form of warfare are bureaucratic and legal in nature. Instead of conquering territory to benefit government by force of arms, for example, we have the creeping control over any land in a “watershed” in order to bring about the UN’s “Century 21” plan of land planning, complete with “wildlife corridors” and mass resettlement of rural populations, all in the name of saving the planet. We have such creeping control over the financial system that the Bank of America is now literally owned by the US Government and few people care. And what freedom we have will only diminish as our economic serfdom is perfected by our creditors, thanks to the Thelma and Louise spending plan: drive off a cliff while laughing about the things we accomplished.
Global Warming was the perfect weapon of this new war. Indeed, it was the Neutron Bomb, allowing government to stop any human use of energy but leaving the things government wanted to do, such as massive public works projects, untouched. The more complicated that government made the environmental laws, the more people who had to be employed and the more money government had to spend, in order to get something done. All these people, suppliers and subcontractors became beholden to the rulemakers and the money printers, and those in charge of “spreading the wealth around”.
Government is now at war against its own citizens for the purpose of gaining as much control over them as possible. That is exactly why those who view themselves as being on the side of big and Bigger government are reacting the way they are to the Tea Party. This is why the November election is so important.

Jimbo

Talking of Canadian scientists:

Vancouver Sun – September 13, 2010
Tightened muzzle on scientists is ‘Orwellian’
“Documents reveal federal researchers, whose work is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa before speaking with media
…………………..
“It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning.
………………………..
The policy applies to “high-profile” issues such as “climate change, oilsands” and when “the reporter is with an international or national media organization (such as the CBC or the Canwest paper chain),” she wrote.”
http://tinyurl.com/36dkadd

Sandy

“That’s enough right there to put him firmly in the “nutcase” category. Humans have devastated the natural order of things over most of the globe. With the possible exception of the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, there isn’t a square mile of land that hasn’t been seriously affected by human action, going back at least two thousand years and probably more than fifteen thousand.”
Been to Antarctica?
Be interesting to know many square miles on the continental USA “hasn’t been seriously affected by human action”

thebuckwheat

On one of its web sites that discusses methane hydrates, the US Geological Survey states:
“The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.” [1]
This carbon came from somewhere and that somewhere was either biological or from some physical process in the earth’s crust over time. This is all perfectly natural. I am amazed at how those who call themselves men of science presume that the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow ideal.
Further, anyone who looks at the graphs of temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere over long periods of time, such as those from Vostok station (e.g.: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/Vostok.jpg ) must surely realize that at a given level of CO2 there are two temperatures. These curves show that it is impossible for CO2 to be the primary driver of climate.
Finally, we have the quint native cliff villages in the wilds of the American southwest that show there was a time when the climate there was sufficiently moist to support agriculture. Yet long before humans started industrial-scale use of hydrocarbon fuels, the climate changed and the quaint natives perished.
The truth is that the climate is always changing. The only question is to what extent human activity causes harmful changes. And how can we even permit ourselves to foolishly try to extrapolate 0.1 degrees of signal when over 3/4 of our measuring stations are giving us junk readings? Only when those doing the work are hell-bent on advancing an agenda that has far more about increasing government control and reducing liberty and prosperity than it has to do with actually benefiting humanity.
[1] http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

bbttxu

John, I italicized the text I took issue with. -bbt

PeterB in Indianapolis

“CO2 concentrations are going up. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Because of isotope ratios, we know that human fossil fuel sourced CO2 is accumulating.”
This is true, although the concentration would still be going up even without our contribution, and our contribution is probably not all that significant, especially when it comes to any measureable temperature variations.
“Conclusion: global warming is our fault.”
This is extremely likely to be false. The globe has been warmer in the past than it is now, and we were not even burning fossil fuels at the time unless you count wood-burning fires during some of the later periods when it was warmer than it is now. Also, it has yet to be shown that CO2 provides positive feedback which amplifies warming. If the feedback were positive, then back in the days when CO2 atmospheric concentration was 800ppm and higher (and yes that HAS happened in the past), then the Earth would have IRREVERSABLY heated to unbearable temperatures, releasing ever more water vapor and CO2 into the atmosphere, causing ever more heating, and it would have been an endless upward spiral of doom. Since this did NOT happen when CO2 concentrations were 800ppm and higher, I find it highly unlikely that it is going to happen with CO2 concentrations of 390 ppm.

Jimmy Haigh

Oooo! This will get them frothing!

Steve M. from TN

GregL says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:56 am

CO2 concentrations are going up. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Because of isotope ratios, we know that human fossil fuel sourced CO2 is accumulating.

a + b = c, so c = d. Your logic is defective.
Conclusion: global warming is our fault.

Bart

Ken Hall @ September 20, 2010 at 10:23 am:
Ken, the IPCC itself actually says human CO2 production is currently about 4% of the total yearly output of the planet. If the accumulation to date were to have stayed in the atmosphere, the total concentration would be roughly 600 ppm. The CAGW advocates claim that the other roughly half of the accumulation went into the oceans, and the rest is just hanging around to be slowly removed.
Empirical evidence against this hypothesis argues that the correlation between estimated human production and measured change is poor across all spectral components. In fact, the last several decades’ measured accumulation in the atmosphere is remarkably linear.
Moreover, the hypothesized slow dynamics of reabsorption would naturally lead to a far ranging random walk-like behavior, which is not indicated by the historical record upon which the advocates rely. Just as Nature abhors a vacuum, it abhors maintaining any equilibrium which is not enforced by competing dynamics. To maintain the supposed historic tight equilibrium, the system would require a high bandwidth, but such a high bandwidth would prevent the observed buildup from being due to exogenous input, and so there is a contradiction.
The conclusions, to one who really understands how dynamic systems work, are that A) the greater part of the CO2 buildup we have seen in recent decades is due to natural variation, and B) the historical record is suspect. Even now, if one plots the rate of change in measured CO2 concentration, it is abundantly clear that it is decelerating, and we have reached an inflection point. It may take a couple to three more decades if the curve is smooth, or it could happen rapidly, which the historical data indicates at least qualitatively is possible, but average CO2 concentration will almost certainly begin to decrease again in time, as it likely has bobbed up and down for centuries before we were around to observe it.