JohnCorrespondent

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

CLIMATE SCIENCE

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

I am not a scientist (except maybe in manner of thinking, occasionally).

I've taken very few physical science classes after Freshman year in hs. Chem & Physics in hs 50 years ago, 1 general sci class in college; all totalling only 5 semesters. I've taken math classes which occasionally help me some but they're not the same thing as science classes.

I do have a strong opinion about C*****e C****e, anyway. Presumably I'm biased. (Virtually everybody's biased about some things.)

HOW MUCH WORK WOULD IT TAKE TO FIND OUT?

How much work would it take a lay person such as myself to find out whether "g****l w*****g is real" or "g****l w*****g is a h**x"? A lot, I think. S/he would have to study scientific papers and discover, first-hand by reading and understanding, which ones are well done and which ones are shoddily done.

Is there a way to do so without bias? Probably. As above. But it would take enough work that hardly anyone would do it. A dedicated scientist might do it. But even scientists can be biased or lazy. I'm guessing most scientists (good, useful people though they are) are either biased or lazy, just like almost all of us.

THE USUAL SHORTCUT: JUDGE THE CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER

The usual approach to such questions, I think, is to judge the factions' characters. For example, such and such group, think tank, industry, or political party have wasted our time in the past, so we're not going to pay attention to them now. Or we may judge their manner of expression. For example we might think that those prone to inflammatory statements, or derogatory utterances about _other_ peoples' characters, or incomplete sentences, are less worthy.

THE LAY-PERSON'S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING

This evening I spent a half hour or so researching it in Duckduckgo.com (a search engine on the web, which claims it doesn't track the user -- therefore avoiding some bias in its list of results). I entered search queries such as:

g****l w*****g nations science leaders

I was looking for an enumeration of nations and nations' official science leaders who have given official statements about g****l w*****g (or "c*****e c****e" which is a phrase used more often lately).

(Why would they used to say "g****l w*****g" but now instead they would say "c*****e c****e"? Maybe because "warming" is so often misinterpreted as a description about _weather_; whereas the g****l w*****g of _climate_ is the real topic that the scientists are discussing.)

STRUCK GOLD!

This Wikipedia article is probably as good as I'm going to get in one evening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here's a rough partial summary of it:

"Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing":

These are classified by whether they agree, disagree, or are noncommittal with respect to the "IPCC view".

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e

The "IPCC view" (in 2007 -- the date cited in this Wikipedia article) is (summarized by me):

======================

THE IPCC VIEW:

======================

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ..."

and

"Most of the g****l w*****g since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

and

"... Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative ..." where negative means bad.

Etc.


------------------------------------

CONCURRING:

------------------------------------

(in 2001) "the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom."

(in 2005) "The national science academies of" "Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States".

(in 2007) "the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States". And: "the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences".

(in 2008) (similar to 2007)

(in 2009) (similar to 2007)

(in 2007) also: "the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences".

(in 2006) the "American Association for the Advancement of Science"

(in 2008) the "Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies"

(in 2001) the "United States National Research Council"

Plus about 40 or so other organizations (too numerous to list here but if you're curious you can see them in the same Wikipedia article).

---------------------------------

NON-COMMITTAL:

---------------------------------

"American Association of Petroleum Geologists"

"American Institute of Professional Geologists"

---------------------------------

OPPOSING:

---------------------------------

It says:

"See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of g****l w*****g" (that's a link) (I did not bother to follow it; it would be a list of scientists, not a list of international nor national official organizations.)

(As you can see, I'm favoring the national and international scientific bodies, rather than individual scientists. Does this reflect some bias that I have? Maybe.)

and:

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e."

----------------------------

My Conclusion:

----------------------------

I already said I was presumably biased. The Wikipedia article has not _changed_ my opinion; it confirms it (rather strongly, I think).

A quick reading shows that (according to that Wikipedia article) the only mentioned "national or international scientific body" which _might_have_ rejected "the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e" would be: (drum roll ...):

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

(does that word "Petroleum" suggest a bias?)

and a closer reading reveals that as of 2007 even THEY didn't reject the findings.

Their (AAPG's) backing off from the topic makes interesting reading; there are two paragraphs about that in the same article, in the "Non-committal" section.

The whole Wikipedia article could be biased; we don't know what it leaves out. (And, I didn't even bother to look at the list of dissenting scientists -- I was only considering the nat'l & internat'l org's of scientists.)

And, the dates indicate the article may be as much as 9 or 10 years old.

Nonetheless I think it's convincing.

Let someone post an opposing article, similar to this Wikipedia article -- go ahead, go where even the AAPG does not dare to go.

My conclusion is: yes, of course g****l w*****g is real and humanity's causing a lot of it and humanity should stop emitting so much greenhouse gases. Duh. And it's urgent and very important.

(And (in my additional opinion, meanwhile), even aside from all that about g****l w*****g, humanity should stop polluting so much anyway -- even if the "g****l w*****g" issue _were_ a h**x. Pollution's been a huge problem all along, even before anyone identified "g****l w*****g" as an issue.)

Seth

Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Entries are made by individuals who "join" or wh**ever, and can indeed be biased or "engineered" to lead you to a predetermined conclusion.

Radiance3

=================
C*****e c****e does not bother the Obamas. The home they bought could be covered by water once there is a surge.
Fact of the matter these L*****TS don't really believe in C*****e c****e. The change is only for the small fry people
while they own airplanes to traverse from place to place. while the smaller people are required to ride in horses to prevent c*****e c****e.

Obama bought a $15 million home on a beach front at Martha's Vineyard few yards from the water front.
https://www.bet.com/style/living/2019/08/22/obamas-buy-martha-s-vineyard-estate.html

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Most are not experts, they cut and paste the info they agree with and too more the point, they set about trying to prove main stream to be correct. My thought, if you use Wikipedia...fact check them.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You are not a scientist, you've taken very few science classes, you have a strong opinion about c*****e c****e, and you conclude that AGW is real. OK.

So, you conducted your "research" based on a predetermined conclusion. You did not take a scientific approach, you took an ideological approach. You searched for information that would support your preconceived notion that AGW is real. IOW, in ignoring objectivity, you failed science, logic, and reason and wasted your time. Good job.

Read on------

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet g****l w*****g observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a g****l c*****g crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the g****l w*****g issue. Even if the theory of g****l w*****g is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight c*****e c****e.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: "A g****l w*****g treaty (Kyoto) must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the enhanced greenhouse effect."

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of g****l w*****g is all phony…c*****e c****e provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and e******y in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order."

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on C*****e C****e in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key UN IPCC Researchers View Their Science:

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulph**e aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: "Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general climate circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected."

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, c*****e c****e policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth..."

At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on C*****e C****e, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that g****l c*****g risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context t***slates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: "None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state".

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that g****l w*****g is likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a g****l w*****g-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?"

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “Dr. Trenberth seems to have come to a conclusion that g****l w*****g has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on tropical cyclone activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust into IPCC is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL (Geophysical Research Letters) paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that Yale professor James Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official (American Geophysical Union) channels to get him ousted (as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal).”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin Trenberth and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is."

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s g****l w*****g hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘t***h’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary...”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck is involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional c*****e c****e based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if c*****e c****e appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll k**l us probably...”

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: "We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the g****l w*****g that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming g****l w*****g catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less, but they don't know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for c*****e c****e technology research, tax breaks for “g***n e****y”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to g***n e****y subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for c*****e c****e programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon f****l f**l use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made c*****e c****e. It never was.

JohnCorrespondent

Yes, Seth, what you say is literally true, and I did not say otherwise.

So, point to a different list of science organizations that have an opposing view (if you can). Get it from "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or wherever you like (even another Wikipedia article that caters to _your_ predetermined conclusion -- you could even write one yourself), but state your source.

If something I got from the Wikipedia article is _wrong_, then point to _that_ thing. I notice you haven't yet disputed a single thing in my post.

One of the reasons I chose that Wikipedia article is that it does list exactly what organizations it's talking about; so, anyone who wants to dispute it can track down any organization it lists and find out directly whether what the article says is true about them or not. If you can find a false reference or false attribution in it, then point to it and tell what you know about it (referencing _your_ source of information, if any).

That Wikipedia article is wide open, vulnerable to your, or anyone's, checking up on what it _says_. Go ahead. That's for the article. As for my post, check up on what _I_ said and trace through my source to wherever a fact got wrong (if you can find any wrong fact in it). It shouldn't be too hard to find a few flaws in what I wrote; I don't expect it to be perfect.

Ricktloml

There are a good deal more scientists other than those connected to the oil industry who oppose the findings of the IPCC. I notice this post didn't mention that the data was in fact produced almost exclusively by computer models, and much of it was falsified to obtain the desired results. Then of course there are all the statements made by UN IPPC members about c*****e c****e being the way to effect the world's economy. There is plenty of REAL evidence that c*****e c****e has existed since earth was created, there is not very much REAL evidence that man is responsible for very much of it

ImLogicallyRight

If man is causing g****l w*****g, it is minuscule, and totally unproven. But if it is sere so, why is it that not a single person claiming man made g****l w*****g mentions that we have over ten times as many people in the world now as in 1900. Quit having babies and it all goes away. If it were real.

Carbon in the atmosphere does not cause g****l w*****g, it follows g****l w*****g, like the release of carbon from the formerly frozen tundra in the far north. This is proven time and time again through thousands of years of ice cores from Antarctica.

And those ice cores have proven that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and they are rather cyclical. We are now in what would be described as a peak of a natural warming cycle. That peak may be 50 years, but eventually we will cool done and head towards another ice age. We better get that oil out of Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska while we can. We may need it. And all of that carbon in the atmosphere will help grow trees. We may need them to burn for warmth.

Every single computer model that has predicated g****l w*****g or catastrophic change has been proven wrong. It just isn't so.

Simply put, get the facts. You are being s**mmed

EconomistDon

I appreciate your enthusiasm and diligence, John, but I feel that you are pinning too much reliance on the "big" organizations who are married to their alarmism. This is especially true of NOAA and the IPCC. I believe that many on their staffs know that they are wrong, but they, as organizations, have pushed alarmism for so long that they can't back down without being thoroughly embarrassed and ruined as a believable research agency.

But this could finally change, as NOAA finally admitted that temperatures have not risen since 2005. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html Actually, temperatures have not risen since the peak in 1998, but NOAA's new land-based temperature stations were not in place until 2005. Previous land-based temperature stations were near urban areas that were not reliable, and therefore "adjusted" by researchers who wanted the temperature trends to rise. The new NOAA data now agree with satellite data that have shown no increase this century.

I could go into great detail how rising CO2 levels are not adequate to increase temperature; or how CO2 levels follow, not lead temperature. I could talk about how temperature change is actually driven by solar output, not by human activity. But let's just look at the blatant exaggerations pushed by alarmists to help judge their scientific integrity.

Claim -- coastal cities will be inundated by rising sea levels. Really? Sea levels have been rising at a pretty steady six inches per century. How or why will they suddenly rise six to nine feet in the remaining 80 years of this century?

Claim -- rising temperatures will cause the deaths of millions of people in major cities like New York. Really? If one or two degrees higher temperature in New York will cause millions of deaths, why are millions of people dying in Miami, Dallas, and Mexico City?

Claim -- America's food supply will be destroyed leading to mass starvation. Really? Plants LOVE CO2; they thrive on it. Real scientists our touting the "greening of the planet". The world is becoming greener, thanks to higher levels of CO2. Our food supply is becoming better. Furthermore, higher temperatures would expand America's wheat belt further into northern states and into Canada. And citrus fruits could be grown all the way up to the pan handle in Florida.

Claim -- The ice sheets are melting. That may be happening in the arctic, but not in Antarctica. Ice in Antarctica is expanding deeper and wider. Furthermore, earth is still officially in an ice age. That is why we still have glaciers. We will not be officially out of an ice age until all glaciers are gone. Antarctica was once covered by vegetation -- no ice. Even more recently, earth was warmer around 1100 BC, again during the Roman Warm period through 200 AD, and again during the Medieval Warm period through 1300 AD. If the cycle continues, the current warm period could run as far as 2400.

These outlandish claims are pushed by organizations who are desperate to keep their alarmism alive. They need people to believe the claims to keep billions of dollars flowing from Uncle Sugar.

Elmer Werth

Money hungry governments and the UN are searching for ways to levy additional tax on the peasants and a carbon tax sounded like a good excuse. m
































Money hungry governments and the UN feel a carbon tax would sound like a logical reason to load on more tax on the peasants. More than 100 scientists(?) have been hired to prove g****l w*****g. They are not going to notice contrary evidence and become unemployed. Congressmen and opportunists like Al
Gore are making millions from alternate energy energy investments. If the danger was real why would they give China and India 15 more years of unlimited coal use expansion? None of their doomsday predictions of prior years have materialized and they have been caught falsifying temperatures and putting false info in computers. Many real scientists think we are nearing the end of the warm cycle and will start cooling. If we were able to remove CO2 entirely all plant life and animals would die and so would we. Food yield would increase with an increase of atmospheric CO2 and decrease with reduction.
Elmer Werth

























food yields would be greater if we did increase the CO2

Elmer Werth

Sorry, The computer went nuts
E. Werth

Elmer Werth

Sorry, The computer went nuts
E. Werth

Elmer Werth

Sorry, The computer went nuts
E. Werth

badbob85037

If c*****e c****e. g****l w*****g, or what ever you want to call it was real we would have drown or grown gills years ago according to that great climate scientist and Carbon credit broker Algore.