Climate Scare is an abuse of science

Image: "Our" ABC
"Our" disgraceful ABC used this image to depict
invisible CO2 (non-)pollution
Meteorologist John Coleman interviews Professor S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia and Professor Bob Carter, ICSC Chief Science Advisor and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. 

Singer: There is no evidence at all that we can find that humans are contributing in a substantial way to climate change. Nothing to worry about; its bunkum!

Carter: A trained scientist will tell you what Dr Singer has already told you: there is no evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Indeed, carbon dioxide emissions are an environmental benefice. It makes plants grow; it is plant food. It greens the planet.

Bob asks why does the Green environmental movement call Carbon Dioxide a pollutant. (If they were truly "green" they would welcome increased carbon dioxide.)

Carter: To call carbon dioxide a pollutant  is

  • an abuse of logic;
  • is an abuse of language
  • and it's an abuse of science

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report referenced by Professor Singer may be seen here.

Joe Bast and Jim Lakely, both of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, join Mr. Coleman later in the program.

Coleman: It is a very difficult thing to defeat this bad science....

Bast: Research that has been done now shows that the human influence on climate is very small; it's a non-problem. - KUSI News - San Diego CA - News, Weather, PPR


  1. I don't know if "pollutant" is an important word for CO2 in Australia. We do know that it is a greenhouse gas though, and that is why we should be wary of large increases in atmospheric concentration.

    1. Large Increases? Man's proportion of atmospheric CO2 is around 3% whereas nature's contribution is 97%.

      There has been no increase in global temperature for at least 16 years while atmospheric CO2 has increased.

      So, again, why should we be wary of "large increases in atmospheric concentration."

  2. Holy crap... if CO2 is pollutant then so is Oxygen, Water, Nitrogen etc. all of these gases are critical for life on this planet. We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas... but then again so is water vapour.... so why isn't it included in Kyoto.... well that is a big question... my advice to the sceptics party.... don't angry about the steam pictures... the green con artists have been at this for years... I did a lot of work with ventilation stacks... the greenies used to photoshop "pollution" into pictures and distribute them to the locals... they even told a woman in Richmond VIC that her baby would die because of a ventilation stack.... AGW... This is a pyramid scheme... Al Gore and the UN at the top... blah blah.... and the poor old average Joe is the one who is paying... you will never convince the Green criminals... focus on the people who are making the money.... 10 billion for Christine Milne and her mates...

  3. Our current warming (such as it is) began not in the mid 1800s, when co2 began increasing and the industrial revolution began. The only non-cherrypicked way to establish the start of our current warming is to go by to when it started, which was at the bottom (low temp) of the Little Ice Age which was in the mid 1600s. That's two centuries of natural climate warming BEFORE co2 began increasing and before our industrial revolution.

    The computer models predicting AGW all ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit. They claim water vapor provides a positive feedb ack, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase brought on by increasing co2, but NOBODY understands the net climate feedback. What's more, the heating capacity of co2 is limited to a few narrow bandwidths of sun energy, and at 20 ppmv co2 had already absorbed 50% of all the energy available to it. Now, at 400ppmv there's basically nothing left. If co2 can no longer provide temperature increase, then water vapor has nothing to feed upon.

    Even the UN has cast aside Michael Mann's hockey stick. The IPCC now claims that our current warming is at record highs not seen in over 800 years (which acknowledges that the MWP was as warm, likely warmer.) But the temperature during the MWP was natural climate warming, so our current warming is within the range of natural warming. To claim otherwise there must be some evidence, particularly if the government wants to spend lots of money on what is obviously a non-problem.

    The "scientists" all feed at the government trough. The UN and its agencies constantly aspire to more power and what better way to obtain it than claiming the world has to control its use of fossil fuel?


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!