CERTAIN, HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE SUN, LIKE CARBON DIOXIDE, IS A DEADLY, DANGEROUS, CLIMATE CHANGING “POLLUTANT” (SATIRE)

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

To mock and ridicule climate change extremists and their deranged  unscientific hysterical notion that beneficial, life-giving Carbon Dioxide (which feeds plants, makes them grow and is the basis of the planetary food chain) is a deadly, noxious, world destroying "pollutant" dangerously driving global warming (and a fossil fuel burning humanity to existential doom) I posted on Disqus the following fun question about the impact of drinking CARBONATED water (seltzer) on my health to see what reaction it would get from these loons:

 

QUESTION ABOUT CO2 POLLUTION AND MY HEALTH

If what the EPA and many climate scientists claim is true about Carbon Dioxide (CO2): that it's a deadly, polluting heat trapping gas that's catastrophically imperiling a fossil fuel burning humanity by dangerously heating the Earth's atmosphere and seas (creating droughts, floods, heat waves and coral disease) then am I polluting my body and possibly ruining my health by drinking large amounts of seltzer (CARBONATED water)?

                                      

I'm addicted to the stuff and need to know that it's safe to drink and won't kill me prematurely. Truly, it's no fun living in fear that me, a drug free healthy teetotaler could be drinking myself to death with a nonalcoholic beverage that's sold everywhere. Can someone, anyone help me here!

************************************************

 Two days later I received the following reply by a humorless climate alarmist named "waxliberty" who completely missed my sarcasm; and taking me literally used my post to mock me for my ignorance of science which he set out to correct. This is what he wrote:

No, ye who desperately needs some basic science education.

CO2 is a pollutant due to its role in driving warming and climate change, for example the loss to mortality via bleaching/heat stress of up to half the Great Barrier Reef in the last two years. If it can kill off the world's coral, it's a pollutant.

http://www.independent.co.u...

Is that reasoning too complex for you?

Consider comparison cases: iron is essential for nutrition, yet also an industrial pollutant. Is your mind able to juggle such subtleties?

 

 My Reply

 

(not posted on Disqus)

 

Thanks for your desperate attempt to educate my ignorance and rescue me from skepticism and denialist hell. But after reading your comment I'm not any smarter, wiser or enlightened for it. I do however pity you for the foolishness and hysterical nonsense that you mistake for real, settled science, which hopefully the following analysis and facts will correct.

 

 

 

 

We know that the Earth is in an interglacial period between two frigidly cold ice ages, and has been warming for the last 11,000 years (see). And we know that this long epoch of interglacial warming is divided into phases or cycles of global warming and cooling; and that the problem, as you point out, is the role that CO2 (a heat trapping greenhouse gas) has played in all these warming phases; and especially in the latest phase that is now upon us - having started around 1850, 90 years into the Industrial Revolution as this chart shows.  

 

\
 

Now over the last 3100 years (as the chart shows) we've had four periods of interglacial global warming: the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the current Modern Warm Period. And three of these four periods were in the pre-industrial past when wood was mainly used for fuel, and fossil fuels were scarcely used.

Indeed, at the time, as you know, atmospheric CO2 was a low 280 parts per million (ppm) or .028% of the atmosphere. And since the invention of the internal (fossil fuel powered) combustion engine, that launched THE INDUSTRIAL-CAPITALIST REVOLUTION (the greatest era in history of scientific discovery, creativity, technological progress and wealth creation), atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% to 400 ppm - a tiny, little minute increase of .01% over pre-industrial levels. And this increase (which is growing by a mere 2 ppm per year) you believe poses the greatest existential threat ever faced by humankind?

 

 

 

And alarmists like you believe that if we stupidly and dangerously persist in massively burning fossil fuels to power our world there'll be hell to pay and catastrophe ahead leading to an extinction event: global rainlessnes and droughts will cause famines and crop failure killing millions, you believe; desertification will turn fertile lands into arid, bone dry sierras and death valleys; rising acidified seas will flood coastal towns and cities displacing millions, and all coral and marine life will perish; runaway, extreme weather events (hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, etc) will multiply exponentially becoming daily occurrences wrecking universal havoc costing trillions in damage and financial distress; and terrible unheard of killer plagues will arise making the Black Death seem like the common cold or flu or a bad stomach virus. Indeed, if this is what the future holds because of human-industrial CO2 then yes, indeed, you're right: CO2 is a dangerous, menacing "POLLUTANT" that should alarm us.

 

 

But this is mindless, hysterical, unscientific nonsense deserving mockery and ridicule or, at worse, a long stay in the nut house. For the truth is this: if CO2 is a "pollutant" because, as you say, its "driving [global] warming and climate change" then anything that causes that should also be termed a "pollutant." And such would be (to an even greater degree) the burning, scorching, nuclear furnace at the center of our planetary system: the SUN. For, as you'll see from the evidence below, it was variations in the heat and energy output of the Sun that drove climate change and global warming in past, pre-industrial interglacial warm periods.

 

 

 

 

Indeed, solar physicists who study the Sun (a young evolving star) tell us that it's heat and energy output is slowly increasing; and that sometime in the distant future (a billion years or less) the Sun's output will become so intensely and hellishly hot as to make surface temperatures on this planet (as on Venus) impossible for life. Will the Sun then be a "pollutant" because of its globally destructive heating effects?

Hell, not even high levels of 7000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 (see above chart) that enriched the pre-historic Cambrian Age 500 million years ago (when most of the major groups of animals were born) couldn't do to this planet what the hotter, brighter future Sun is irreversibly fated to do regardless of what the CO2 level is. Which then of the two potentially is the greater and more deadly pollutant? The Sun? Or CO2.

 

 

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that the Sun has driven climate change and global warming in past warming cycles, just as you believe the "pollutant" CO2 is doing in this age. Going back 1000 years take for example the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD - 1200 AD) which was global in scope and just as warm (if not warmer) than it is today. Indeed, this was the age when Viking explorers led by Erik the Red discovered a relatively warm Greenland (that's warming up again) that was green with grass, trees and plants and suitable for growing barley and raising livestock - until killer cold conditions set in from the advancing Little Ice Age (see).

 

 

Above is a google map (see) charting the vast extent of the warming during the 300 year Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The red balloons which dominate the chart represent scientific research papers (climate reconstructions) related to the areas pinpointed by them. And what we see is UNIVERSALITY. From the North Poll to the South Poll, from the Atlantic East to the Pacific West, across North America, Europe, Africa and China and down under in the Australian continent the work of over 700 scientists from 40 countries and hundreds of institutions found warming in every part of the medieval world - warming that was equal to or greater than temperatures today.

 

The great global warming of the Medieval Warm Period

 

One of the most prominent of these papers by Rutgers Professor Yair Rosenthal (no AGW skeptic see) found that the medieval Pacific Ocean was warmer than today's Pacific by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Another MWP reconstruction by Prof. Hong Yan of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences (see)similarly found very warm temperatures in the Western Pacific, China Sea and on the Chinese mainland; and backing Yan's work is yet another paper from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (see) that reconstructed temperatures in China for 2000 years.

 

Two other fascinating MWP reconstructions for the Southwestern United States (California, Arizona, Colorado etc.) found two devastating mega droughts lasting a total of 420 years with sweltering temperatures of 3 degrees F higher than today, like offshore in the Pacific (seesee and see); and it goes on and on and on, study after study multiplied in the hundreds finding warm land and ocean surface temperatures across the medieval world establishing its global magnitude.

 

 

But the fundamental question remains: if the deadly, Earth destroying "pollutant" CO2 wasn't driving the climate change and global warming of the Middle Ages then what was? In an interview with New York Times' climate columnist Andrew Revkin (see) Yair Rosenthal claimed that the cause was a "reorientation of the Earth to the Sun." Now I'm not quite sure what "reorientation" here means; but what Rosenthal says suggests that the Sun was the primary factor in medieval climate change and global warming - not volcanic activity, El Ninos, ocean oscillations, etc. as others wrongly believe.

solar-activity-mwp-lia-mgm-zharkova15

And as you will see herehereherehereherehereherehere and here 

Rosenthal is not alone in linking solar activity to medieval global warming. Indeed, there are perhaps dozens more studies linking the two - as well as dozens more (including Rosenthal) linking the decline in solar activity to the end of the MWP and the Earth slipping into a new global cooling phase: the Little Ice Age.

 

So there you have it Mr. waxliberty, enough hard, empirical scientific evidence (gathered over decades of research and global climate reconstructions) proving that the grand, glorious, life-giving Sun is, according to your definition, as much a climate changing, global warming deadly  "POLLUTANT" as Carbon Dioxide. 

 

Now do you see how idiotic this narrative is and what a fool you and other warmunists have been to believe it? That you've been blindly accepting as settled science and unquestionably true politically driven doomsday nonsense about beneficial, global greening, mildly warming anthropogenic (man caused)       CO2?

 

 

THE TRUTH IS THIS:

 

The climate is indeed changing, changing for the better. And fossil fuels and man caused CO2 will continue to enrich the Earth and the life of humanity for a long time to come.

 

RELATED

 

 
  
 
 
.

37 thoughts on “CERTAIN, HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE SUN, LIKE CARBON DIOXIDE, IS A DEADLY, DANGEROUS, CLIMATE CHANGING “POLLUTANT” (SATIRE)

  1. It makes perfectly good sense to me. If the sun was the primary driver for global warming in the preindustrial age then it’s a pollutant like CO2 is stupidly said to be for our age.

    1. If CO2 is the dangerous molecule that liberals say it is – in the ifinitismaly small quantity of One CO2 molecule for every 8000 other atmospheric molecules, – then one must conclude that the CO2 molecule has more intense radient energy than does Uranium or Plutonium.. Do the math = to heat up 8000 other molecules by One Degree F or C, – – the CO2 molecule would need to have an energy quotient of 8001 degree temperature for the average air mass to become One degree warmer.. But Liberals have never been good at Math, – if it’s too close to Reality – for supporting their propaganda..

      1. – – and where are the Physicist and the Astro-Physicist that can explain the awesome & powerful Galactic and inter-galactic inter-actions of our Solar System and our Earth and the MilkyWay Galaxcy as it rotates every 225,000 years around, across, and thru huge inter-galactic energy streams & spacial dust streams (check out the String Theories) as all this part of the Sun-Earth, & Galaxcy races across so-called Empty Space.. Tell me HOW did all those distinctly separate soil layers come to Earth except that the Solar-Galactic System crossed huge spacial inter-galactic dust streams – causing layer upon layer of the same material on Earth.. If you tell me it’s all volcanic deposition, I’m sending You back to grade-school..

        1. Right.The warming comes from the Sun, during the day. At night, some of the heat is radiated into space. Clouds, water vapor, CO2 and other gases act as a blanket and keep some of the heat near the surface

          1. The leftist bastards never reveal that they are aware of cycles: Sun’s output, Earth’s wobble, and others that influence the gradual change of climate. IT make you want to scream.

  2. BS! Warm Climate in early periods in earth show no “Carbon” influence. Even as recent as the early and late 1800’s, to say nothing of the dinosaur periods. The Globalists are being found out in their continual brain washing drives to rule the world and shut down thinking people. Global warming due to CO2 is only their conjecture based on faulty or deliberately designed “Test results.” Those on the dole of government money to further their research will not willingly give up their cushy lives in favor of the TRUTH.

    1. Very Interesting::!! = Every responce given here has an important piece of the puzzle picture.. Someone should compile the Best of these Comments until the Picture becomes very clear.. For starters = all the compounds, molecules, vapors, & gases that comprise Earth and it’s Atmosphere are totally & dynamically normal to Earth alone, – and all are totally out of the control of Big Government.. It is the tiny co2 molecule exhaled by people & animals ( one-in-24,000) – that this Insane Government wants to use to Control People..
      As an interesting aside, = Back in HS Science, we did an experiment.. We put two potted-well watered geranium plants – one under two separate large glass bells.. We waited for a few days.. Both plants began to turn Yellow.. However one yellow plant was given supplimental CO2 and the leaves returned to Green and begain to florish.. The other plant became noticably CO2 starved and began to clearly die away.. Days later, we introduced CO2 to this confined, sickly plant and it began a slow recovery back to normal.. “Conclusion..!!” CO2 is an Essential Plant Growth requirement.. “Conclusion.” = Plant life on Earth is an Essential Human & Animal requirement.. No CO2 = no Plant life.. No Plant life = no Human or Animal Life.. Conclusion: = It’s Government Population Control, = not climate control. Final Conclusion: = Blow into a hurricane, – check for any affect in the outcome…!!!

      1. Good post! It’s mind boggling to hear warmunists say that 280 ppm is the right amount of atmospheric CO2 for plant growth when higher industrial age levels are provably making the Earth greener and more productive in fruits, grains and veggies to feed a growing global human population needing more food.

  3. Trump and Pruitt are doing a splendid job in cleaning out the EPA swamp and the climate change nuts are howling.

  4. According to universetoday.com….the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of the following molecules: nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), argon (1%), and then trace amounts of carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, xenon, ozone, iodine, carbon monoxide, and ammonia. Lower altitudes also have quantities of water vapor.

    At worst, CO2 is but a trace element. Of all the other trace elements, why is CO2 being fingered as the culprit?

    Especially when plants convert CO2 into oxygen

  5. it’s not even secondary- or tertiary cause- man is NOT causing climate change- we don’t produce near enough CO2 to do so- the CO2 i nthe atmosphere is only 0.00136% of the atmosphere- that’s it- No way can that amount be causing global climate change, or even localized climate changes for that matter- there isn’t enough- the math doesn’t lie- NASA and ilk lie!

  6. Great anti-warmist satire, Apollo. And so true.

    The warming comes from the Sun, during the day. At night, some of the heat is radiated into space. Clouds, water vapor, CO2 and other gases act as a blanket and keep some of the heat near the surfac

    CO2 is not the major source of the heating. Look up on a sunny day.

    Furthermore, the leftist bastards never reveal that they are aware of cycles: Sun’s output, Earth’s wobble, and others that influence the gradual change of climate.

    Remember the glaciers covering the northern part of the country? 15,000 years ago? I wasn’t there, but the geological evidence is indisputable.

    1. Indeed.The cause of the warming is the solar spot cycle. Any moron not mindlessly spewing the Church of Global Warming dogmas can see the scientific evidence in the climate history. As Apollo notes: the earth cyclically warms up and cools down; but these cycles are dependent on the intensity of the sun spot cycle. The more sun spot activity, the greater the energy radiating from the sun, the warmer earth gets. Less sun spot activity results in cooling.

      Global Warming is the modern equivalent of the “earth is the center of the universe science” of the middle ages.

  7. NY Patriot writes: Of all the other trace elements, why is CO2 being fingered as the culprit?

    Because Al Gore can’t make money from banning water vapor (clouds) which is the main culprit of global warming. CO2 – Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of burning oil, and wow, how convenient – oil is a trillion dollar business so guess what the con man focuses on? It is ALL a scam that exists solely to make criminals like him money. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small 0.04% that if you drank a quart of water that had 0.04% cyanide in it, you would live. Oh yes, and the left NEVER EVER mentions the percentage like that. They constantly try to deceive the public by stating it as “400 parts per million”..The public really doesn’t pay attention to the million part and instead focuses on that number “400”. “Oh my lord we are as high as 400! We have to do something before we all burn up!” Like this scam artist, he REFUSED to state the percentage……..

  8. Most climate scientists agree that, via CO2 emissions, that man has contributed to “some” warming. Now ask those same people about “how much?” and you’ll get wildly varying answers. Of the “97% consensus” lie, it’s actually only about 33% that believe man is the primary reason.

    What would the temperature be if man didn’t exist? They can’t answer that with any certainty.

    1. I love how the warmists always resort to “argument from authority” citing 97% of global warming scientists blah blah blah.

      Now, there is a new argument from authority in the other direction AND it is a government official, no less! Just say, “the head of the EPA says that CO2 is not causing global warming”. There, now we both have authorities to cite and it’s a stalemate.

      NOW, we can maybe engage them to think critically using their own brains (assuming that they have them!).

      Ask questions, like – what was the average daytime temperature in the past week? (e.g., 72F) And what was the average night time temperature in the past week? (e.g., 45F). So, if the temperature swung 27 degrees in a single day, how concerned should we be if it changes on average 1F in the next hundred years? If the temp change in the next century averages 0.01F per year, but the temp changes daily by 27F between day/night, that means that the daily variation is 2700x wilder than what they are concerned about. Are your concerns misplaced?

      I really hate the warmists and their really fake science.

  9. Excellent piece Apollo! If Trump does nothing else except rid us of the biggest scam of all time and totally, scientifically debunk global warming/climate change, his Presidency will be a raging success.

    How many trillions has this scheme cost Americans and globally with no end in sight?

  10. Billions of people live in the Earth’s tropics, but almost nobody lives in Antarctica or along the shores of the Artic Ocean. So is the Earth’s climate currently too cold or too hot?

  11. Thank God for Trump and Pruitt. They’re bringing some sanity back to the country in exposing the giant fraud Global Warming or Climate Change has been. The perpetrators need to be fined and discredited in the eyes of the world.

    1. The more CO2 there is, the more plants will grow to consume it. This is a little too much “science” for the alarmists to handle, though. They’d rather just keep it simple and just say “CO2 = DEATH”.

    2. Too little CO2 would kill off our planet. We would look like Mars.

      CO2 is great for Trees and Plants.

      CO2 levels have been thousands of times higher in the past.

      We need more CO2 and not less.

      1. “Too little CO2 would kill off our planet. We would look like Mars.”

        The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and yet, despite this deadly greenhouse gas, the average temp is -80°F. Maybe things are a little more complicated than the enviros want to admit

    3. Ask a climate change nut following questions and you’ll never get an answer.

      1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.

      2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.

      3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.

      4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.

      5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.

      6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.

      7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

    4. Excerpt from this article from Natural News: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet

      http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-06-01-the-paris-climate-accord-is-genocide-against-plants-forests-and-life-planet.html

      “….all plants depend on CO2 for their very survival. It’s the “oxygen” for plants, and right now trees, grasses and food crops are starving for CO2 because it sits at nearly the lowest level it has ever been in the history of the Earth (barely above 400 ppm now, when it used to be over 7,000 ppm in the past).

      Humans attempting to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil, fictional “plant demon” attempting to eliminate oxygen from the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire human race. Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans, eliminating carbon dioxide is genocide against plants.”

  12. Seltzer is carbonated poison. When you drink it and walk out into the hot sun the heat it traps can give you a stroke. LoL!

  13. Saw Gore on CNN last week he looked like a brainwashed LUNATIC! I NEVER watch those shows, but I couldn’t look away. What a car wreck he is.

  14. CO2 is actually a poison too, but only in amounts around a few percent or more. This is what a lot of people think made the air unbreathable in the movie Avatar. We don’t exactly have to worry about that, though.

    1. CO2 is not “a poison”…or people would die whenever a fire extinguisher was discharged, or dry ice was present. It’s the issue of using up all the O2 in a sealed space that kills people.

      Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, will definitely kill you.

    2. SherryB = Your comment lacks reality.. Life on Planet Earth got it’s very start with High concentrations of CO2.. = in the high %’s Go back to your elementary Science & Chemistry books and start over.. Actual established Facts MUST break thru Liberal Fiction..!!

  15. Many “Air-Tight” corporate food green houses control the high content CO2 addition to the air. Workers within use “air-packs” to keep their breathing air at normal CO2 levels, – but the florishing plants thrive three to six times better on the abundantly added CO2.. Like it or not, = CO2 controlled Green Houses are already Here & thriving, – and are the Future in the Quest for more foods. Plant life is Nature’s way of stripping the “C” carbon away from the “O” oxygen.. Plants keep the “C” carbon sequestered and release the “O” oxygen for human, bird, fish & animal life.. Plants & Animals live a symbiotic relationship & a very necessary life together with CO2 the bonding agent between the two life forms..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *