SkepticalScience.com (a global warming advocacy site) says,Consumption of vegetation by animals and microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.And this tidbit:
Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.“CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year.”So there is a total of 796 gigatons of CO2 entering the atmosphere annually, of which 3.27% originates from human beings. And 43% of that is absorbed. Now you can see how science proves that global warming results solely from human CO2 emissions. It’s got nothing to do with the sun, water vapor, etc.
The final thing to recall is that, if every measure advocated in Kyoto was enacted, man would affect about 3% of the man made CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 makes up about 3% of the atmosphere(.03); man accounts for about 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere(.0009), and man can affect about 3% of what man puts into the atmosphere, or about .000027 of the atmosphere, which is about 27 millionths of the atmosphere. In order to affect these 27 millionths of the Earth's atmosphere, man - and especially the United States of America, would spend massive $Billions (hundreds of billions? trillions?) of our wealth and resources, thus diverting that wealth from more productive economic uses, thus creating much human misery and human suffering which would not otherwise be created.
"Global Frauding" is not about saving the planet. It is about one world government seizing power over the peoples of the world.
Via Rand Samberg via Donald Sensing, James Lewis:
The most important take home lesson is that global frauding was the clear and conscious work of a political machine aiming to steal your money, your liberties, and your country. It was a massive, worldwide attempt at a coup d’etat, and the victims were going to include all the free and prosperous peoples of the world. Hitler had his Reichstag fire. Today’s transnational left had its global warming fraud. The political goal was exactly the same: maximum power through maximum fear.
A key thing to remember about climate science: the peer review process was corrupted. This is part of what puts the "gate" in "Climategate". The scientists in the CRU emails were dominating and corrupting the peer review process: were using themselves and their cronies to peer review each other's work; were using themselves and their cronies - along with intimidation and lying and influence and political blackmail - to keep skeptic's work out of scientific journals, i.e. to prevent skeptics work from being peer reviewed and presented to the world.
Some of the most infuriating apologia for the CRU emails have been statements similar to this statement which I am about to make up:
Peer review! Trust the science! The work was peer reviewed! Are you going to trust some wacko skeptics who were never peer reviewed and published?! Trust the peer reviewed science!Reading such tripe, I feel the urge to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war upon the authors. Never forget: the peer review process was politicized and corrupted by a type of global warming mafia acting inside the scientific community. Imagine Tony Soprano saying: You're not getting peer reviewed. End of story. That's effectively what was happening. Imagine Al Capone: Liquor is my territory. I'll not allow you to horn in on my territory. Substitute climate science for liquor, and that's effectively what was happening.
Also via Sensing, David Warren:
For, as we glean from the hacked documents, supporters of the hypothesis have been able to reverse the onus of proof. In the last resort, their argument comes down to: We say the planet is warming. And anyone who says the contrary must "prove the negative" beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. And we will be their judges.
Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. ...he continues with that impartial aplomb for which we have always adored British lords, but then he reminds just how much government spending and bureaucracy, in Britain and all over the world, has been mounted entirely upon this dubious research; and thus how far-reaching the implications if the obvious turns out to be true.
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation,"
For the correspondence that has been hacked is not mere backroom gossip. It includes incriminating exchanges between some of the biggest names in the "global warming" business.
A fun skeptic: Lord Monkton
The good news: enough persons did rise up and spoil the Copenhagen plans. Copenhagen authorities have announced that no treaty will be signed in Copenhagen. They couldn't pull all the details and all the sympathizers together to get it done. Kimberly Strassel, in WSJ Opinion Journal:
Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month's summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.
The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.
Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud.
Also, I'm pretty sure Lord Monkton, in his presentation, forgot (or never knew) that the U.S. Senate has to approve treaties before the United States becomes a party to them.
Still, there is fun stuff in Lord Monkton's lecture. I like words, and the most fun moment for me is sort of nonsensical, but I like it: Lord Monkton, almost as an afterthought, tosses out "apotheosis" in a sentence. Ahhh. Sublime.