Josh writes: Here are last night’s cartoon notes from a superb GWPF Annual Lecture by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. You can read the lecture here. Click the image below for a larger version.
The answer is, unequivocally, yes!
Josh writes: Here are last night’s cartoon notes from a superb GWPF Annual Lecture by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. You can read the lecture here. Click the image below for a larger version.
The answer is, unequivocally, yes!
Yes indeed. An excellent lecture which should be compulsory reading for politicians. Well done as usual to Josh for an excellent set of cartoons.
Nice bloke. Enjoyed his talk on Golden Rice when he came to Perth Down Under last year.
The graphic shows 3 million for the population of Canada. It’s 30 million.
Not after the Green zealots have got you all using renewable energy. A Canadian winter without fossil fuels?!!? It will be 3 million before you know it. 😉
My fault – I will fix, thanks for pointing that out 😉
Not to get too picky but I think it is closer to 36 million and counting.
No fair counting caribou.
35,999,999 Now….I’m leaving !!!! LOL
Per the CIA Factbook – downloaded about 1952 Z 15 October:
39 Canada 35,099,836 July 2015 est.
So closing on 36 million.
Auto
Irony; The Greenie cult, by virtue of being anti-carbon, is a death cult.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Josh is good, and so is CO2.
It’s time to go on the offensive. It’s no longer good enough to show that CO2 is not the demon the activists have been trying to turn it into.
It’s time to start advertising all the good things that more CO2 does.
Yes indeed! Let’s start a positive pro-life carbon liberation movement, or let’s say The Carbonist Party, at once 🙂
For this purpose I offer my suggestion of a Carbonist Manifesto once more:
“Manifesto of the Carbonist Party
Preamble:
A spectre is haunting the earth — the spectre of Carbonism. All the powers of the old world have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and UN, Obama and Merkel, Greenpeace Radicals and Internet IPCC-trolls.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as carbonistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Carbonism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Carbonism is already acknowledged by all world powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that carbonists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Carbonism with a manifesto of the Carbon Liberation Party itself.
To this end, Carbonists of various nationalities have assembled in the World Wide Web and sketched the following manifesto, to be published as a clear statement how valuable and important the liberation of carbon is in order to deliver enough CO2 as essential plant food for a better human nourishment and much improved and greener environment.”
OK – so far the preamble. Any suggestions for the first chapter? 😉
Superb. I no longer teach ecology, but if I did, this would be required reading.
Thank you, I’ve a new desktop wallpaper now. Brilliant.
Love the notes! When can I buy next years calendar?
Is it that time of year already? 😉
It is indeed that time I have been looking at some of this years gems and wondering which will make the calendar.
As Anthony will tell you there is a Mann waiting for his big oil sponsored version!
James Bull
I am in with greenes, I am in favour of protecting nature, I am told that the CO2 coming out of my car’s exhaust pipe is organic.
vukcevic,
The only vehicle organic exhaust I’m aware of is that from an Amish carriage. It is truly an environmentally friendly vehicle emitting only a little methane. Just don’t step on the exhaust.
You’ve been sold a bill of goods (a Volkswagen perhaps???)
Mike
You wouldn’t say it was environmentally friendly if you were sitting in the drivers seat when the engine farts.
Mr Bentley
Nice to hear from you.
I use petrol refined from crude oil. Crude oil being a hydrocarbon has an organic origin.
However, I would not recommend it either as a top up or the substitute for your horse’s daily intake of hydrocarbons. If you really wish to be fully organic, you might consider setting light to your source of free methane, it could keep the driver warm.
@Mike Bentley
October 15, 2015 at 6:24 am
Seeing how this is a light article (with serious implications): My favourite story about driving a horse was “a friend” of mine taking a new girl friend for a winter night sleigh ride with his favourite horse. At one point he reached out and put his finger up the horses rear and rubbed his finger on his lips. The lady was shocked and asked him what the heck he was doing? He said: “My lips are chapped”. She said: “Does it help?” He replied: “No. But it sure keeps me from licking them.”
Old, old story.
I often spread my “Vehicle Exhaust” on my pastures in the spring. 😉 It helps the grass grow. That is my contribution to sequestering CO2 and improving the topsoil.
Speaking of which, time to go get the tractor and do some work. Have nice day all.
Safe bet that there was no kissing when that date was finished either.
Talking about methane exhaust-ing means of transport I am sure you have seen this one before, but I thought it might enhance the sombre atmosphere using from this page.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CSTP.jpg
Disclaimer: Any similarity with the AGW peer reviewed papers financial sponsorship is purely coincidental.
I had the impression that horses breathe regularly and emit CO2, just like cars.
Not only do horses emit methane but they conveniently drop mixed organic piles of poorly digested plant remains. Plus the horses drink fair amounts of water that they return to the atmosphere as urea mixtures or urea/salt evaporates.
When will the Amish start recycling all of those urea puddles and sweat evaporates? It would be nice if people who ride horses for pleasure also took time to recycle all of the horses emissions.
Maybe the EPA should require less urea from horses and less CO2? Why should the EPA stop there? Perhaps the EPA should require equivalent energy efficiencies as well.
There is no such thing as an emission free world. When efficiencies are totted up, say per mile, per year, per battery cycle, per French fry; plain ordinary cars swilling down plain ordinary gasoline/diesel are darn efficient.
Don’t forget, all of the effort required to capture, filter, clean fryer oils must be part of the efficiency chain.
I got my VW Diesel in the days before they started down the darkside of CO2 control, it has no electronic engine management it is all mechanical so I can fit it myself without having to plug in a computer. On some days on the road it is one of the few Diesel vehicles not belching out clouds of smoke, such is progress?
James Bull
OH,
I’m using organic in the popular sense, not the chemical definition….
MJB
vukcevic isn’t using the chemical definition, either.
Wow. This lecture deserves the widest possible distribution.
Of course we should celebrate CO2! It is the free currency of life, not “Carbon Pollution”!
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Shared it on FB. Awesome
Celebrate LIFEGIVING CO2? I do!
Well, heck – can’t type. Warning: Installing IE11 will delete your passwords. 🙁
Excellent lecture. Some errors or typos, though:
“…there was nearly 15,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level. Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon…”
Patrick is mixing up mass of CO2 with mass of associated carbon. Presumably he means here 2,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
“100,000,000 billion tons, that’s one quadrillion tons of carbon…”
Looks like 100 quadrillion to me. Again the problem with carbon vs carbon dioxide mass. Also makes me doubt his numbers. I hope he or the GWPF editors go through the numbers one more time before the “wide distribution”
Lance: I agree regarding the confusion regarding atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
When I first starting reading about the CO2 story, I wanted to find out how much was actually in the atmosphere – here’s what I found.
1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes (i.e. 1,000,000,000 which is a billion).
I found sources agreeing that 7.8Gt of CO2 is equivalent to 1ppm of CO2 (and to 2.12Gt of carbon).
Hence, using the current figure of 401 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is used, we get 7.8 X 401 = 3127.8 gigatonnes, or 3127,800,000,000 tonnes.
Not only should we thank our lucky star for CO2, but we should put our hands together for the natural warming that probably aided it’s accumulation in the atmosphere. We are so fortunate to be living in a modern warm optimum. The opposite alternative would be scarcity and suffering.
We are truly doubly blessed. GK
I nominate November 30 (the start of COP21) as “National CO2 Day”.
Outstanding!
A few tenths of a degree of warming is a good thing.
More CO2 making plants grow bigger is a good thing.
More CO2 enabling plants to grow in places it was once too dry for them to grow in is a good thing.
There is no downside to more CO2.
Thanks, Josh.
This is a very good lecture by Patrick Moore.
Politicians and news media should stop scaring the people into energy poverty.
There is not a single indication that global warming has been caused by human emissions of CO2.
To the contrary, there are physical clues that point to ENSO, the succession of El Niños and La Niñas, are regulating lower-troposphere temperatures. And although the alarmists have tried (and failed) to blame the stronger El Niños on CO2 well-informed scientists remain skeptical of man-made global warming and climate change.
Unwanted free grant money
There is a certain William T Grant (Mr.) Co-ordinator Grant Foundation Promotions, of 570 Lexington ave # 1800,New York, NY 10022, or he/she is so claiming, informing me that my email address won, let’s wait for it, …lump sum of $450,000.00. In order to get this money I have to supply not only my personal and bank details, but also my email address too (?!), to which he sent this ‘fortuitous news’
Absolute confidence is demanded else I forfeit right of claim.
Huh… by posting this accidentally, I just lost small fortune.
Be aware!
One of the panels in the cartoon uses the same concept as the cover of my book (Warning, shameless plug follows):
I was told a story by a fellow who as a child had climbed the suspension cable on the under construction golden gate bridge that Golden Gate Park owes its fertile soil to the combined stables of cable car and delivery companies and the Presidio. So CO2 being good for the environment would not be the first time that waste from energy production was beneficial to humankind! Of course, at the time nobody argued that a botanical garden and public fly casting ponds sprinkled with halls and gazebos for other public use was some kind of affront to the ecology.