From the Oh noes, we’re almost doomed department:
For the first time in roughly 5 million years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could top 400 parts per million in the Northern Hemisphere next month.
What Doyle Rice is writing about is this Tweet from Scripps:
399.72 parts per million CO2 in air
April 25, 2013http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) April 26, 2013
Interesting how a single Tweet can become an entire news story, especially since Mauna Loa data still has a ways to go. It’s almost as if Doyle can’t wait for this to happen.
Expect a plethora of gloom and doom stories next month or maybe the month after when MLO hits 400.
Note that the seasonally corrected trend number has a ways to go and Doyle in his article cites the unofficial number, not yet released, and often corrected later:
As of Tuesday, the reading was 398.44 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.
At Scripps, they are already gearing up for the announcement, trying to visualize what 400 PPM looks like. Apparently, it looks like a fossil skull (see their story below). For the average person, they won’t notice anything, pre 400 CO2 will look exactly to them like post 400 CO2, and just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed. Though, if there is any severe weather anywhere in the world within that month, you can bet some fool (like Joe Romm) will try to link the two events.
From Scripps:
What Does 400 ppm Look Like?
As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists look back four million years for answers on what to expect from climate
The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.
Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.
In the oceans, fossils mark the spread of tropical and subtropical marine life northward along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Both observations and models of the Pliocene Pacific Ocean show the existence of frequent, intense El Niño cycles—a climatic oscillation that today delivers heavy rainfall to the western U.S. causing both intense flooding but also increasing the river flows needed to sustain salmon runs. The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies. Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.
Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.
“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said. “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Scientists can analyze the gases trapped in ice to reconstruct with high accuracy what climate was like in prehistory, but that record only goes back 800,000 years. It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then, but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago. They based their finding on the analysis of carbon isotopes present in compounds made by tiny marine phytoplankton preserved in ancient ocean sediments.
That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated. These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.
What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet, as the ocean gradually warms up in response to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus.
– Robert Monroe
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil.:
re your post at May 1, 2013 at 7:24 am.
No! We cannot discuss anything because I refrain from wasting my time interacting with egregious trolls.
Richard
I had been hoping that another reader familiar with the pliocene would have commented on this article. I have been too crazy busy with work and family matters to do so, and it takes me too long to write up complicated thoughts so that they can be understood.
But …
The characterization of the pliocene climate implied in this artical is completely bass ackwords! They authors are implying that raising CO2 caused the warming seen. Problem is that the pliocene is characterized by a generally cooling and drying climate. It is the cooling that is thought to be the driver. Any warming was a temporary respite as the earth plunged into the modern ice age.
@ur momisugly Phil.
So you have re-emerged here. After hiding. Evading.
Answer the question you were asked and twisted and slunk away from on a previous thread.
Your previous performance can be re-posted here if necessary.
What is your financial interest in the promotion of policies that you KNOW have and will kill a vast number of human beings?
@ur momisugly Stan W.
More one line snideness. Answer the question: how many dollars per corpse?
jc:
I dislike the behaviours of both Phil and Stan W but I also abhor what you are doing.
You cannot know what you are asserting. You are trolling. Stop it.
Richard
jc says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:30 am
@ur momisugly Phil.
So you have re-emerged here. After hiding. Evading.
Answer the question you were asked and twisted and slunk away from on a previous thread.
Your previous performance can be re-posted here if necessary.
What is your financial interest in the promotion of policies that you KNOW have and will kill a vast number of human beings?
Due to your activities (like those you are restarting here) Anthony shut down discussion on that thread so further replies were not possible. I’ll certainly not encourage your activity here.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 8:20 am
Phil.:
re your post at May 1, 2013 at 7:24 am.
No! We cannot discuss anything because I refrain from wasting my time interacting with egregious trolls.
Your choice the scientific discussion will continue without you.
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 10:34 am
Phil.:
re your post at April 30, 2013 at 9:35 am.
Ferdinand is here so you could left discussion of the carbon cycle to him because he knows what he is talking about.
Your calculations are meaningless because, for example, they ignore effect of pH.
Indeed Ferdinand does as do I. I performed no calculations I presented the governing equations.
pH is not ignored it enters via the chemical equilibria which I referred too, it determines what form the CO2 takes in solution, in the ocean, bicarbonate.
The equilibrium CO2 concentrations of atmosphere and ocean surface are dependent on the alkalinity of ocean surface layer. A change of average pH of only 0.1 would be more than sufficient to have caused more than all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. And such a change is far, far too small for it to be discernible.
You have cause and effect reversed, it is the increase in [CO2] which leads to the change in pH.
Could such a change have happened? Yes, and the reason for it would probably have ended centuries ago.
Undersea volcanoes release sulphur ions which are carried by the passing water.
There is no such thing as a ‘sulphur ion’ and Richard refuses to enlighten us as to what he meant. As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–. Na, K, SO4, Br, B and F have constant ratios to Cl and each other, everywhere in the ocean, therefore this cannot be responsible for the putative changes in pH that Richard hypothesized.
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released so I assume that this is what Richard refers to. Unfortunately for Richard’s hypothesis, sulphide salts are very insoluble in water so when the hot H2S reaches the seawater it reacts with dissolved metal ions such as iron in the seawater and precipitates out the insoluble salt, e.g. FeS. This is the ‘smoke’ of the ‘black smokers’. Also locally the SO4– ions are depleted near the smoker by reaction to form anhydrite, CaSO4.
The thermohaline circulation carries the sulphur until it reaches ocean surface layer centuries later. The sulphur ions then reduce the alkalinity of the ocean surface layer.
This clearly doesn’t happen, it ends up as sulphide minerals on the ocean floor!
Did a variation in undersea volcanic activity happen centuries ago? Nobody knows.
Is that the reason for recent rise in atmospheric CO2 or not? Nobody can know.
Actually the science indicates that it didn’t/couldn’t happen that way.
Richard’s idea of making up a scenario which appeals to his personal incredulity is not science and his lack of understanding of the basic science (chemistry in this case) doesn’t help.
Friends:
I point you to the post from Phil at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am.
This is science fiction at its best. Asimov would have been proud.
Of course, I shall continue to discuss the carbon cycle with Ferdinand because – although he and I fundamentally disagree – Ferdinand has both knowledge and understanding of the carbon cycle. Also, he attempts serious scientific debate.
Richard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 10:46 am
Please do not use Isaac Asimov as your example. While it is true he was the greatest Science Fiction writer of all time, he also wrote solid scientific books in every Dewey Decimal classification of his time. He was a real scientist.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:39 am
On a previous post (The Unravelling of Global Warming is Accelerating, April 19th) after observing the contributions of both Stan W. and Phil., and the nature of any responses they made, I asked a simple question (at 11pm April 22nd) of both of them: did either of them gain financial advantage from the adoption of AGW as a basis for policy decisions.
The was my comment and question in entirety. It contained no element whatsoever relating to anything else and was purely neutral in tone, carrying no implied criticism of any arrangement or of them.
I subsequently had a response from Stan W, not answering the question, but instead asking me if I had any financial interest in disagreeing with the AGW proposition or policies. I answered this fully.
I then reiterated the question to Stan W, which he again responded to, this time answering partially and evasively.
He refused to respond thereafter although made fully aware of the inadequacy of his response, and despite his continued activity in a manner consistent with his previous form.
The response from Phil. was similarly evasive. He responded three times without saying anything at all of relevance, instead trying to divert attention.
This was a very simple question.
It required only a simple answer.
Neither of them were prepared to do this. Instead resorting to evasion.
Both of these have appeared on WUWT and have demonstrated palpable insincerity of purpose: they are not here to participate honestly.
The degree to which the issue of AGW is actually about science is debatable. The fact that there are billions of dollars involved in how it is perceived and any perception applied, is not.
To maintain that any given proponent of AGW is unaffected and unmotivated by personal financial considerations, without knowing that to be the case, is a fantasy.
If it were NOT for these venal motivations, AGW would now be dead.
When it is established as is the case here with these two, that they are not sincere, not honest in the manner of discourse, then the obvious and inescapable question is why.
People are dead. More will die. To start insisting on knowing why is the only thing that will stop it. That takes more than questioning “the science”. More than analysing political and policy responses. More than examining ideologies.
It takes knowing beings such as Stan W and Phil. for what they are.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 7:09 am
Richard, you are a master in diverting the attention from the main points in the discussion towards irrelevant details.
I didn’t take into account the deep ocean layers because the changes in the deep ocean layers are much slower than in the surface layer. Not at least because of the about 50:1 ratio in carbon mass. So either
– the decrease in pH is from the deep ocean layers and thus should still be at work in the surface layer
– the decrease in pH is only in the surface layer and slowly dilutes in the deep ocean layers.
Both caused by an external strong(er) acid like sulphate emissions from (undersea or land) volcanoes and both causing (part of) the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In both cases the decrease in pH of the surface layer lowers and DIC and increases the CO2 emissions from the surface layer to the atmosphere.
Any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium will cause an extra CO2 flux from the atmosphere into the surface layer, increase DIC and lowers its pH.
The fact that DIC in the surface layer increased over the past near 30 years incontrovertibly proves that at least in the past 30 years the CO2 flow was from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse. Thus at least halve of the increase in the atmosphere is NOT from ocean acidification and at least in the past 30 years, the pH decrease in the oceans is from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, not reverse.
And the sponge data confirms what I said: i.e. the net fluxes in response to the altered equilibrium would be from air to ocean surface layer and from ocean surface layer to deep ocean.
The reverse of what you say: a lower pH in the ocean surface (if the pH changed due to exogenic factors) increases the CO2 flow from the oceans to the atmosphere, until higher levels in the atmosphere are reached at a higher equilibrium. Now you say that the altered equilibrium is causing more CO2 going from the atmosphere into the oceans?
As I said before: the increase in DIC means that any exogenic acidification of the ocean surface layer is more than compensated by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thus in no way such an acidification is the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, whatever the change in setpoint by the pH lowering was.
@Phil. says:
May 1, 2013 at 9:45 am
Yet more duplicity. Trying to pretend that you could not answer because the thread was shut down. You responded to me three times. Three times. Saying nothing. Squirming away.
Simple question. Answer it.
“Why? Even when the number of humans plateaus or starts to decline slightly I would expect resource consumption per capita to go up, as automation makes products ever cheaper. I know the Malthusians must hate this and will do their very best to stop us from having it, but they control only the broke nations of the West.”
I’m really surprised that not more statisticians and demographers have caught on to population trends. The first thing we should realize that if current trends continue, there won’t be a “slight” decline in global populations. Europe is headed towards halving its population before 2100. Ditto for Japan and Russia.China, while riding a different timeline is on the same trend slope. By 2100 China’s population will have long ago stopped growing and will be declining. North America is on the same trend, but on a slightly more gentle slope. South America and Central America are also on the same negative trend line. UN Total Fertility Rate numbers show only positive population growth in some parts of East Asia, Africa, and Oceania (These are the only areas where the TFRs are above replacement levels of 2.1 children). India, while still growing its population is also seeing decelerated growth rates.
These numbers equate to a Global Total Fertility Rate of 2.34, down from 4.85 in 1970 (based on UN data). At this rate, the globe will pass below the 2.1 TFR sometime in the next 15 years. With fewer babies, there will be fewer females. And fewer females equates to even fewer future children. To break this cycle women across the globe would have to produce somewhere between 3 and 4 children at sustain that number for at least 2-3 generations. Good luck with that.
What this all means is that the demand for finished goods, consumer goods, energy, and food will be decreasing. Demographic momentuem might keep things “stable” for another decade. But, the facts are simple. We most probably hit peaks in demand for food, energy, and finished goods between 1998-2007. The elderly consume less than the young, they save more of thier money, and take fewer chances. The reality of a prolonged global recession shouldn’t be scoffed at.
That is why I find all of this AGW nonsense so tiresome. CO2 levels will probably hit peak levels the next 10-15 years before decreasing.
Phil. says:
May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released
No direct ready knowledge of mine about volcanic emissions, but I have read that a lot of sulphur compounds are released as SO2, which – in the atmosphere – oxydise to SO3 and form H2SO4with water which attracts more water and forms the reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere which give part of the cooling after major eruptions. In water that may give similar reactions, which “might” give a lower pH. Not that I expect that, but that would give some theoretical possibility.
philjourdan:
re your post to me at May 1, 2013 at 11:09 am
Yes, you are right. Asimov did write some good science so I should not have used him for my illustration. Sorry.
For information of onlookers who did not understand my illustration and your just offence at my using it, I explain the following.
Phil claims to be a chemist. His post at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am said
Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
And he claims that sulphur emissions form sulphide ions so react with metal salts to precipitate out. That is plain wrong. Sulphate ions also form. Indeed, the lava from Kilauha (Hawaii) flows into the sea and the result is that the sea in that vicinity turns yellow from the sulphuric and sulphurous acid which forms.
But Phil says
In fact, sulphate ions are the third most common ion in the ocean; see e.g.
http://www.lenntech.com/composition-seawater.htm
The three largest ionic concentrations in typical sea water are
Chloride (Cl-) 18.980 mg/L
Sodium (Na+) 10.556 mg/L
Sulfate (SO42-) 2.649 mg/L
Yes, philjourdan, I insulted the memory of Asimov by suggesting he would have been associated with science fiction such as that Phil wrote. I apologise to you and to the memory of Isaac Asimov.
Richard
What’s with this northern hemisphere stuff; CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere isn’t it; it is isn’t it ??
George,
The idea of well mixed is not accurate. Atmospheric CO2 levels are being controlled and distributed by clouds and jet streams toward the poles. The Arctic is a strong sink that is partially to fully stoppered half of the year. The Antarctic is surrounded by a strong sink that cycles North and South annually. As a result, the NH will experience higher CO2 concentrations before the SH.
Friends:
I draw attention to the post by Ferdinand Engelbeen at May 1, 2013 at 11:40 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/usa-todays-breathless-co2-announcement-not-quite-there-yet/#comment-1293563
Ferdinand disputes my argument.
Please note that in the post he refutes an assertion which disputes my argument.
This demonstrates the integrity which Ferdinand always displays in our often very heated arguments about this subject.
Perhaps people can see from this why I am willing to debate with Ferdinand and not trolls.
Richard
The oceans rose so fast in the Pliocene that some of my family’s skulls evolved to looked just like those of a walrus.
richardscourtney says:
May 1, 2013 at 11:44 am
Phil claims to be a chemist.
Indeed I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry.
His post at May 1, 2013 at 10:31 am said
In connection with hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor sulphide ions, S–, are released so I assume that this is what Richard refers to. Unfortunately for Richard’s hypothesis, sulphide salts are very insoluble in water so when the hot H2S reaches the seawater it reacts with dissolved metal ions such as iron in the seawater and precipitates out the insoluble salt, e.g. FeS. This is the ‘smoke’ of the ‘black smokers’. Also locally the SO4– ions are depleted near the smoker by reaction to form anhydrite, CaSO4.
Because you went off in huff and refused to say what you meant by the meaningless term ‘sulphur ion’, so I was left to assume what you meant.
I first addressed the possibility that you might be talking about sulphate:
” As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–. Na, K, SO4, Br, B and F have constant ratios to Cl and each other, everywhere in the ocean, therefore this cannot be responsible for the putative changes in pH that Richard hypothesized.”
I notice that you don’t refer to that statement!
I then addressed the possibility that you might be referring to hydrothermal vents where the ion concerned is the sulphide ion and showed that your hypothesis was impossible.
Firstly, I talked about changes to volcanism. And volcanism varies. Phil talked about hydrothermal vents. The difference is profound. Wicki says this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcano
Submarine volcanoes are underwater fissures in the Earth’s surface from which magma can erupt. They are estimated to account for 75% of annual magma output. The vast majority are located near areas of tectonic plate movement, known as ocean ridges. Although most are located in the depths of seas and oceans, some also exist in shallow water, which can spew material into the air during an eruption. Hydrothermal vents, sites of abundant biological activity, are commonly found near submarine volcanoes.
And he claims that sulphur emissions form sulphide ions so react with metal salts to precipitate out. That is plain wrong.
Not true that is exactly what happens!
Sulphate ions also form. Indeed, the lava from Kilauha (Hawaii) flows into the sea and the result is that the sea in that vicinity turns yellow from the sulphuric and sulphurous acid which forms.
Indeed they do which is why I addressed them first!
But Phil says
This clearly doesn’t happen, it ends up as sulphide minerals on the ocean floor!
Which is indeed the fate of H2S emissions.
In fact, sulphate ions are the third most common ion in the ocean; see e.g.
http://www.lenntech.com/composition-seawater.htm
The three largest ionic concentrations in typical sea water are
Chloride (Cl-) 18.980 mg/L
Sodium (Na+) 10.556 mg/L
Sulfate (SO42-) 2.649 mg/L
Which is why i said: “As far as the ocean is concerned the only significant sulphur containing ion is sulphate, SO4–.” As I pointed out it doesn’t show the variability that would be necessary to support your hypothesis, giving the value to four figures should have been a clue.
Yes, philjourdan, I insulted the memory of Asimov by suggesting he would have been associated with science fiction such as that Phil wrote. I apologise to you and to the memory of Isaac Asimov.
The only fiction in that post was yours with your hypothesis of the imaginary ‘sulphur ion’ resulting from submarine eruptions leading to a change in surface pH, a fabrication without any support. In contrast all my statements can be supported by the scientific literature:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/cdiac74/chapter2.pdf
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/earth/pdf/black_smokers_incubators.pdf
steveta_uk says:
April 30, 2013 at 9:45 am
> http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_month.png
> The above graph shows we’ve already passed 400 several times. Nothing happened.
Check out http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_week.png which claims to be for the week ending May 30th. The CO2 level will be above 400 ppm for one sample that will be taken during the evening of the 25th!
Espen says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:27 am
> The Scripps site has not updated its “daily” curve for several days now:
http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
Fixed, from http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/why-daily-readings-are-sometimes-unavailable/ :
Many readers noticed that there were several days without readings recently. A problem occurred on Friday, April 26, when a computer failure late in the afternoon resulted in some data loss until repairs were made on the morning of April 29. Daily average estimates for April 27 and 28 were therefore not determined.
In quickly scanning comments to this point it looks like no one has yet mentioned that 5MYBP marks the beginning of a significant – for humans at least! – era – that of the “modern” ice age (or maybe the start of the latest meso-pulse of the modern ice age commencing 30MYBP – I’ve never been clear on that).
At any rate, if human activities were tempering the fairly extreme climate swings of the last 5 million years, when climate has been human-friendly Holocene only about 17% of the time, this would be a bad thing?
Do these people ever consider what they’re saying?
PaddikJ says:
May 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm
###
Scan again.
@ur momisugly Paul.
Now five times asked. Four times acknowledged as a question. Four times evaded.
And the last ignored.
When a child is asked a direct question an honest response is expected. To be evasive, and deceitful, is taken as being indicative as to the status of actions undertaken by the child.
When asked once, and this is the response, it can be interpreted as discomfort or shame.
When asked twice, this can be interpreted as obduracy or guilt.
When asked three times, guilt associated with that action is confirmed, and in this instance a dishonesty of character.
Why do they do this? Because they think they will get into trouble because what they have done is WRONG. They KNOW it is wrong.
You have been asked 5 times. You have articulated a response 4 times, each having the character of evasion.
You know that elements of your actions are wrong. Mens rea Is established.
From your comment at: “the Unravelling of Global Warming is Accelerating”; April 19th 2013 –
“What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?”
You do two things here.
1. You acknowledge that you know that people were killed.
2. You try to maintain that they were killed by cold, which might have as its cause a variety of factors. You do this in the full knowledge that they were NOT killed by cold as such, rather they were killed by availability, use, and cost of energy. You therefore seek to excuse public policy, which you are a part of advocating for, maintaining, and significantly expanding, from any responsibility. You know that to be false. You advance this falsity with duplicity.
You are therefore aware that your position, which you seek to advance in the manner demonstrated here, has killed people, and can be expected to kill more people.
It is therefore established that you know what you are doing is wrong. And that the course of action you seek to promote has killed and will kill people.
Your general comments and responses here are a matter of record. Insofar as they support and confirm an intention to manipulate and deceive – to not act in “good faith” – you can be seen as culpable in any intended result which does in fact occur having been in all or part enacted because of like behavior by you or those with whom you seek to achieve this.
That will be a matter of further scrutiny, but from what has been seen here, it can be confidently said that this is the case.
If, in fact, you are also receiving financial advantage from your association with this issue, this makes the situation clear cut. In particular if your actual role in gaining this financial advantage is, in part or whole, formally or informally, to prosecute this agenda in such a way, this is comprehensive and irrefutable.
Given that an element of your evasion generally is to evade that point specifically, that can be surmised to be the probable case.
Your awareness of your actions and the implications of those actions is established. Your knowledge that your prosecution of those actions is morally wrong is established. That you financially benefit from the implications of your actions is highly probable. That you act in concert with others in this way is likely.
You know that the result of your morally wrong actions, which you gain financial benefit from, will result in death.
This is not a game.
You should consult historical records to gain an understanding of what the consequences are for those who betray the trust, or seek to damage a society and its people to this degree and in this way, when they are held to account. Provocateurs and propagandists are not overlooked. In fact the most revulsion is held for those who insinuate themselves and seek to undermine whilst claiming common cause.
You will think that you are one of many and that you have powerful associates. You are wrong. Take a look around. How many are like you, exposed through this type of interaction.
Even those fully active in promoting this agenda through publications and interactions not visible to the public, will have room to move, simply because of their isolation from being challenged means that it is more difficult to establish dishonesty in their methodology. Not you. You are a shag on a rock. If there are 10,000 like you, equally exposed, there will be no hiding for any of you.
Any attempt to return here or elsewhere and build a case for seeming “reasonable” as a counterbalance will fail. You, and others, are on notice that that is predictable as a strategy and can therefore be dismissed.
This agenda has caused massive destruction and death. In the thinking of a significant part of those working to impose this, it is on the record that this is precisely the intention. Control of, enfeeblement of industrial societies which in itself must kill, and the declared aim of reducing the worlds population.
Exterminating humanity.
The degree to which you or others share these aims is unknown. You cannot however claim that you are unaware that these things constitute a powerful driving motivation as part of this agenda.
You are therefore implicated. The degree to which you approach this dishonestly, and seek to benefit directly from it, is the degree to which you are guilty. Such people will be judged. And condemned.
From the “we-exclude-data-that-doesn’t-agree-with-our-theory” department:
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
(numerous measurements of CO2 well over 400 ppmv in 1820s, 1930s, …)