11,000 “Scientists” Warn About the Climate Crisis – Refutation

JUMP to CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE Update!

This update comes by way of POWERLINE:

  • Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today’s reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to “climate change,” they will swallow anything.

A person I know via Facebook posted the following story on his wall:

I merely responded (in order to get a response really): “Lolz” (the plural, BTW, for Lol)

I got what I was looking for from my friend, AP:

AP:

Why is this funny?

This kicked off a very short convo… but this is my response to the above:

ME:

there are a few reasons. One is this is a rehash by the same group from a few years back. Then they had 15,000 signatories. Now they are down to 11,000. Many of the signatures are from people not affiliated with climate issues: family physician, vertebrate palaeontology, nano optics, economics, civil engineering, and even a retired science teacher, inspector, and adviser… Etc. HEARTLANDS “PETITION PROJECT” has a better field of those more closely related to climate (over 31,000 signers).

Those are two reasons. But another that got me giggling was someone said plant more trees. Environmentalists are all over the place on this. They want to cut down entire forests, plant trees, say you cannot cut and replant for market $$ related issues (why the fires in Cali are getting worse BTW), save old growth even though they cease “gobbling up” carbon. On and on.

I also know we need more carbon (CO2), not less. These are some of the reasons. There are many more reasons, some can be found on my site, here:

Climate-Change

Since the conversation is short (more to come), I wanted to pause and post some of the commentary on the OP. This comes from BREITBART:

But while the statement has received generous coverage from the usual gullible hysterics at CBSABC News, CNN and the Guardian others have responded with scepticism and mockery.

Some have noted that very few of those 11,000 signatories are directly involved in climate science. They work in fields ranging from ‘family physician’, ‘vertebrate palaeontology’, ‘nano optics’ ‘economics’ to ‘civil engineering’ and ‘retired science teacher, inspector and adviser, Warwickshire County Council’. The impression given is of a vast parasite industry – the Climate Industrial Complex – with a strong vested interest in promoting the “climate emergency” but with little personal understanding of the field themselves.

JO NOVA also notes one of the many issues (of course JO gets into the scientific weeds a bit as well:

  • Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

And as JO NOVA notes, and was my point above, “The Petition Project was better done, done years ago, done twice, and has twice as many names on it.”

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy

(PETITION PROJECT)

Continuing with JO NOVA:

Don’t miss the opportunity to pop in on the same journalists that think a list of 15,000 scientists [now “11,000] doing a ten second internet form is newsworthy, but 30,000 checked and accredited scientists signing and mailing a paper form is not. Let them bask in their hypocrisy. Turn the screws on their cognitive dissonance. Be polite. Enjoy their struggle.

For the most part, the media actively ignored 30,000 scientists probably because it didn’t fit with their religion, their own voting preferences, or because they were afraid people they call “friends” might call them a names and stop inviting them to dinner. Cowards. (Let’s talk about being brave: Art Robinson, who organised the Petition Project, later ran for Congress, and his three youngest children all had their PhD’s simultaneously canceled, snatched or dismissed by none other than Oregon State University — the same place that this new “poll” is hosted — OSU.)

WATTS UP WITH THAT however, has the best info — to really get you to LOL:

From the “there’s no quality control in climate science” department comes this laughable revelation, via the Australian:

Scientists’ Petition On Climate Crisis Blocked Over Fake Signatories

Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been ­removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.

Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday.

Okay, moving on in the short conversation. AP said the following after my response:

AP:

Fair enough Sean Giordano, on what made you giggle. Thanks for explaining. It’s fair to point out that perhaps some of the 11,000 people are not precisely climate scientists.

Also though, if what you’re saying about some of the 11,000 is true, it also doesn’t negate the truth of the science either.

There are so many things I can debate and argue with you about when it comes to climate change. But I fear I would be bombarded with a litany of logical fallacies.

Would you be willing to respond to just one specific aspect of climate change for me? It seems to me, that you’ve taken statements from one specific scientist, Dr William Happer, and gone with that as your reasoning for believing that we need more CO2. I also note that Dr Happer has used the phrase “CO2 famine” to explain where we are at in time with CO2 levels.

If you look at the Keeling Curve, you’ll see that since the 1950’s, CO2 levels have gone from less than 300 ppm to above 400ppm today. If you look at the Vostok Ice Core samples, that look back over 800,000 years into Earths past, you’ll see that CO2 levels have not ever surpassed 310ppm in that time frame, until now. There’s also a very clear up & down cycle to that 800,000 year history that is predictable (because of ice ages) over the long period of time before the modern industrial revolution. That history is no longer predictable in the same way because of humans contributing to increased CO2 levels. We have broken the cycle.

The fact that Dr Happer uses the famine phrase to explain where we are at is disingenuous as best, and an outright lie at worst. I would say the same thing about any other people using this word “famine” to describe our CO2 levels. It’s just wrong.

I’m really curious if Dr Happer is your only source for believing this CO2 famine falsehood? Where are you concluding this from beyond the words of a very small minority of people?

Can you please point me to some scientific research where CO2 levels are above 400ppm before the industrial revolution?

I respond in short:

ME:

of course I will. I drive from the early a.m. till mid-afternoon so my response won’t be immediate but I love good conversation

[….]

while stuck in some 405 traffic just a quick response to your [2nd to last] last question: Dr. Freeman Dyson name that carries some weight with it. As well as many of the people found listed in parts of this WIKI PAGE.

Here are two noteworthy videos including Dr. Dyson I mentioned later in a convo that I think we were both too busy for (from a larger post of mine regarding CO2):

Renown physicist Freeman Dyson says CO2 does not worry him… montage

Here is a good, layman article discussing AP’s last question (which was related to his 2nd to last which I answered):

If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today.

Not only did life exist, in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters.

Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.

In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen.

By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees: contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.

The truth about the “greenhouse effect”

About the supposed link between global warming and CO2 emissions, it is simply not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect. It is worth remembering, here too, that CO2 is a minor gas. Today it represents only 0.04% of the composition of the air; and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1.

The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor which is ten times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Water vapor is present in a proportion of 2% in the atmosphere.

Those facts are, in principle, taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning, in using a dirty trick that presents the warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated, through feedback loops, by the other greenhouse effects.

Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For? Click HERE for the Answer….

The benefit of this is relayed in the following via GEM STATE PATRIOT:

Over 279 research projects reports have shown that increasing CO2 increases crop production. The 14% increase in CO2 from 350 part per million (ppm) to 400 ppm has resulted in a 14% increase in crop production. Plants are actually starved for CO2 as they desire 1500 to 2000 ppm of CO2 to obtain maximum production. Commercial greenhouses fertilize the atmosphere by adding additional CO2 to speed growth of all plants. Plants get 400 ppm now.

Increased CO2 levels now improve the health, longevity, prosperity and productivity of all people on planet Earth.

More as well:

If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today. Not only did life exist, in those far-off times when CO2 was so present in large concentration in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters. Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would be likely to compromise the health, and even the survival, of numerous plants. To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 ppm would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of our vegetal species.

In addition, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Phytoplankton species also feed on CO2, using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen. By the way, it is worth remembering that ~70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere comes from phytoplankton, not trees: contrary to common belief, it is not the forests, but the oceans, that constitute the “lungs” of the earth.

(Side-Note: JO NOVA has a more detailed critique)

CLIMATE DEPOT has a great post with lots-a-links essentially saying the big 400ppm is really THE BIG YAWN. Here is a small section to respond to AP’s thinking that we have never been past the 400ppm mark:

[See: Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘ancient’ Earth’s climate similar to present day — despite CO2 levels 5 to over 20 times higher than today! — Geologists reconstructed Earth’s climate belts between 460 and 445 million years ago and found ‘ancient climate belts were surprisingly like those of the present’ — Also included ‘a brief, intense glaciation’ &

Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2: ‘Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm’ &

New paper (March 2013) finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age — Paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews — Study ‘reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, ‘THE RECORD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT [CO2 LEVELS WERE] SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN USUALLY REPORTED FOR THE LAST [GLACIAL] TERMINATION,’ WITH LEVELS OF UP TO ~425 PPM ABOUT 12,750 YEARS AGO, WHICH EXCEEDS THE PRESENT CO2 CONCENTRATION OF 395 PPM’ 

(Updated EMPHASIS)

That was it… I saw this as an opportunity to respond to the Guardian OP, as well as add some issues. This is related to the The Medieval Warming Period as well. The following is an UPDATED (tweaked) section of a main post on the issue:


CO2 Not The Demon

It Is Made Out To Be


But asking someone who has swallowed this story is like beating a dead horse. They will tell me — to my face — that mankind releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is driving weather changes (MRCTV FILE).

I will point out a graph that shows in the past couple of decades man has produced more CO2 combined from the previous 100-years, overlayed to the temperature staying the same for over 18-years (in fact, falling a bit since 2005), and this MAJOR, FOUNDATIONAL belief being shown false doesn’t sway their “belief” towards rethinking their previously held paradigm.

Study-after-study, notes that CO2 productions lags behind temperature rising… not the other way around (as the above video notes). IN OTHER WORDS, many proponents of anthropogenic global warming that view man’s harmful creation of CO2 as a driving force behind the issue seem to have the “script flipped,” to put it mildly.

Here is just one example of “The Phase Relation Between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide And Global Temperature,” discussed at THE HOCKEY SCHTICK:

As well as ICE-CORES showing a higher PPM of CO2 in our past than today:

  • A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on Betula nana (dwarf birch) leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The record is of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollen zone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene (Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxy for temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered. (HOCKEY SCHTICK | PAPER)

But really, an increased CO2 has been historically beneficial to our planet, as well as theoretically good for us. See Also, “Dr. William Happer Speaking To The Benefits Of CO2.”

Are the Cal Fires Driven by Climate Change and Capitalism?

Chuck DeVore is interviewed by Larry Elder on these (and more) topics regarding California’s regulatory arm and environmental groups and the affect they have on forest health, power grids, and the rising cost for the poor. The conversation is based in large part on these two articles:

In the above two article (and the ones to follow) are detailed failures of our state legislature (a super majority in both houses are Democrats) to bring California into the 21st century.

These policies of pushing alternative energy goals retards the power grid, and hurts the poor the most where it counts — the pocket book:

These are important topics that SHOULD be looked into by Californians. However, the urge to FEEL “angelic” (on the side of angels) far outweighs the reality of the road we are paving. Here is the “CS LEWIS” of politics from a related post: “Deadly Altruism Marks the Left ~ Illiberal Egalitarianism and the NYFD

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….“Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the proprietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.


* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 12

Average Temperatures and Sea Level Rise

EDITOR’S RANT: I just think it is sad that people do not realize — in general — that we have been warming for 10,000 years [assuming the broadly accepted ages of geology and the ice-age]. I mean, sea levels stood 350 to 400 feet lower than today — 10,000 years ago. If you run the numbers (see: ICE-AGE NOW), you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years. Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years. (Here is a short video of 4-climate guys discussion the issues: YOUTUBE).

  • “In a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Mo Brooks, Alabama District Five, four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are not responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years,” Limbaugh stated. “Why the past twenty thousand years? Because that is when the Earth’s last glacial maximum occurred. The point is well the points are these: average global temperatures were roughly eleven degrees Fahrenheit colder than they are today, 20,000 years ago. Stated differently, global temperatures have risen on average, one half a degree Fahrenheit every one hundred years for the past twenty thousand years. Sea levels, sea levels were roughly four hundred and ten feet lower 20,000 years ago than they are today. This is according to the United States Geological Survey, which the global warming crowd loves and cites often. Stating this a different way, sea levels have risen on average roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years— roughly double the global warming advocates’ claimed average sea level rise of one foot per century since 1993.” (RUSH)

Also this article has some good “average” information: “Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005” (REAL CLEAR ENERGY)

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

[….]

There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery

LaRouchites Recommend Eating Babies To Save The Planet

After having a run in with these guys a few years back in the SCV and noting that Texas voted in a Democrat from the group, I looked into them a bit. I ended up posting 3-times on them in the past (and as a warning, many of the links in those posts may be dead).

What I found out is that they do stuff to grab attention. In the past however, their tactics allowed the mainstream media to portend that the TEA Party peeps were right-wing racist by highlighting in their stories posters of Obama with a Hitler stache at the TEA Party events. But as my two June posts show clearly is that an elected Democrat was holding the same signs, as she was part of this organization. And the founder himself (Lyndon LaRouche) ran for office 7-times… as a Democrat.

Well, this Leftist Political Cult (more cult than Leftist) is at it again in grabbing headlines. What irked me is that many of the conservative sites I went to assumed this lady was an AOC fan. As soon as I watched the video I knew it was a prank of some kind… I just thought it was some comedian or radio morning show prank. The newly silk screened shirt gave it away. But I wasn’t tracking with it being a LaRouchite ploy.

Here is the video (look how caught off guard AOC looks — if anything, the look on her face meeting people from a crazier cult than she is from is priceless:

Here are examples of just how wrong people got the the “baby eating” troll by this LaRouchite chapter. GLENN BECK said this was an “environmentalist activist,” Emma Vigeland of THE YOUNG TURKS said this was a “Trump Troll.” Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the woman who suggested “eating babies” was a solution to climate change “was a Trump supporter.” Others claimed she was mentally ill.

As an aside, all the sites that say AOC should have clearly denounced cannibalism [eating babies] otherwise she by default supports it are wrong. She doesn’t have to denounce it because it is automatically assumed this position is sick and the nuance of publicly rejecting it is silly. JUST LIKE those asking Trump to continually reject “white nationalism” are just as silly as rejecting eating babies.

Here is the tracking down of this woman on Twitter and her affiliation with The Lyndon LaRouche cult:

THE DAILY CALLER had a good post on the group/incident. In it Shelby Talcott (the article’s author) rightly notes the following (EMPHASIZED):

The LaRouche PAC, a fringe political action committee, took credit for the stunt Thursday evening on Twitter. The group responded to multiple tweets on the incident, writing “it was us” repeatedly, The Washington Post reported.

[….]

THE GROUP’S STUNT IS “A FAIRLY WELL-ESTABLISHED TACTIC” FOR IT, MATTHEW SWEET, A HISTORIAN WHO HAS DOCUMENTED THE GROUP, SAID ACCORDING TO WAPO. CONSPIRACY THEORIST LYNDON H. LAROUCHE JR. FOUNDED THE LAROUCHE PAC.

“THEY’VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE ’70S,”

Sweet told WaPo. “The tactic is you go to a political meeting and you create a disturbance that disrupts the meeting, and more importantly, that creates a kind of chaos.”

The article continues on with all the finger pointing going on in our “immediate” social media world. (I just told my own two sons to wait a couple of days to see where the chips fall.) The article then continues on with the more important issue of the groups history and aims:

LaRouche Jr. built up his following, which reaches across the world, “based on conspiracy theories, economic doom, anti-Semitism, homophobia and racism,” WaPo wrote in an obituary on LaRouche Jr., who died in 2019. He ran for president eight times between 1976 and 2004.

A judge sentenced LaRouche Jr., who once was a member of the U.S. Labor Party, to 15 years in prison in 1989 for defaulting on over $30 million in loans from his supporters and planning to defraud the IRS, The Associated Press reported.

He “has managed to attract a small but fanatical following to his conspiratorial view of the world,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in a 1984 report according to WaPo. The cult advocates for economic recovery and wants to implement its four economic laws, according to its website.

LaRouche’s four laws are restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, making a new national bank, creating a crash program to develop fusion power and space, and increasing productivity for credit applications, Newsweek reported….

The instigator is right about the Swedish professor though. The professor spoke about cannibalism being a sustainable food source (the report in the Swedish language can be seen HERE) — and if you haven’t heard of this guy yet, here is CLIMATE DEPOT’S post on professor Söderlund’s ideas, pre-ceeded by Ezra Levent’s show with Marc Morano:

:

….A conference about the food of the future called Gastro Summit being held in Stockholm Sweden featured a presentation by Magnus Söderlund claiming that we must get used to the idea of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change.

As reported by the Epoch Times:

In a talk titled: “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh,”  behavioral Scientist and Marketing Strategist Behavioral Scientist and Marketing Strategist Magnus Söderlund from “Handelshögskolan” (College of Commerce) argues for the breaking down of the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh

Boy that makes me very happy I keep Kosher because humans don’t have split hooves and chew their cud, so I won’t be eating human flesh.

Söderlund refers to the taboos against it as “conservative.” Yep,  he claims those who don’t want to eat your dead relatives are old fogys who don’t want to save the planet.  He adds that people can be sold on the idea little by little, first by persuading people to just taste it. Tasting it? Over my dead body—-er maybe that’s not the correct phrase, but you get the idea.

Conflating resistance to eating human flesh with capitalist selfishness, the seminar’s talking points ask:

“Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?

Capitalist selfishness? Just another reason to hate Socialism.

“Is Cannibalism the solution to food sustainability in the future? Does Generation Z have the answers to our food challenges? Can consumers be tricked into making the right decisions? At GastroSummit you will get some answers to these questions—and also partake in the latest scientific findings and get to meet the leading experts.”

In his talk, Söderlund asks the audience how many would be open to the idea. Not many hands go up. Some groaning is heard.  When interviewed after his talk, he reports brightly that 8 percent of conference participants said they would be open to trying it. When asked if he himself would try it, he replies: “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it.

What about the fact that science has proven that eating other people can make you crazy.

[….]

It’s bad enough that fans of the climate change hypothesis want to destroy the economy for their worldwide redistribution of income scheme, but this is just too gross….


FLASHBACK WEIRDNESS


Mind you, this isn’t the first time a “wild eyed” proposal was made by crazies! The Guillotine was proposed by a Democrat Georgia House of Representatives, Doug Teper (D-61), as a better way to impose the death penalty on others. Rep Teper did receive an award: Honors and Awards Young Democrats of DeKalb DEDICATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT. 

In 1996 in the US, Georgia State Representative Doug Teper[37] unsuccessfully sponsored a bill to replace that state’s electric chair with the guillotine.[38]

[37] “Representative Doug Teper (D-61)”. Georgia House of Representatives. Retrieved 3 October2013.[permanent dead link]

[38] “Georgia House of Representatives – 1995/1996 Sessions HB 1274 – Death penalty; guillotine provisions”. The General Assembly of Georgia. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 3 October 2013.

(WIKI ZERO)

Another blogpost post zeroes in on the possible animus for such proposals (and mind you, I am speaking of this partly to put into the record here at RPT these old proposals by Democrats to put them into the search history of my site to recall them in discussion):

The Arizona assembly considered a bill that would give prisoners a choice of their method of execution: lethal injection or having their organs harvested for transplant.  The bill was voted down in light of the American College of Physicians statement that physicians should not be involved in the execution process.

Georgia State Representative Doug Teper proposed writing legislation that would give prisoners a choice between death by electrocution or guillotine.  Those opting for the guillotine would be given the option to donate their organs. The legislation was never brought before the state senate

Utopianism at it’s most dreamiest.

Climate Religion (Hey, Climate Turds, Grow Up!)

(See more at DAILY WIRE)

The transcript can be found here: Facebook This story comes by way of TWITCHY:

Yesterday the world heard from “climate strike” activists, including students who took the day off to help the Left push the panic button about climate change and blame preceding generations for screwing things up. And now, in the name of equal time, comes a counterpoint:

Here is a blurb about Alan Jones:

  • Australia’s most popular talkback presenter, Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He’s described by many as the nation’s greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.

WEASEL ZIPPERS hat-tip:

FLASHBACK via LEGAL INSURRECTION:

Yesterday, I was fuming that my son’s school participated in the abysmal #ClimateStrike.

Fortunately, student participation in it was optional, and my boy gave the event a hard pass. As a parent, I would prefer students learn actual science and mathematics. If teachers are going to pursue climate-related activities, instead of promoting protests, they should review such concepts as the Milankovitch Cycles, Maunder Minimums, and the geologic record of major extinction level events….

Perhaps my favorite moment is when Carlin goes into the subject of plastics. The comedian humorously ponders whether the reason for humans is that Earth wanted us to create plastic. Here’s a partial transcript:

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos.

Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic asshole.”

As I watched the video, published in 2007 only a year before his death, I wondered how Carlin’s routine would be viewed a dozen years later. When he goes into the segment on man’s attempts to “save the planet” when the planet wipes out cities with volcanoes and earthquakes, I can’t help but think that there would be shouts to silence him today, for being insensitive to Pompeians, Mexicans, and Hawaiians who build next to volcanoes.

What we really need today is a movement to save comedy.

During this routine, Carlin mentioned that we can’t take care of each other much less the planet. This isn’t entirely true, though to actually clean the streets instead of virtue-signal over them at a banquet requires a quality many celebrities and politicians lack: Humility

Ban Everything | 2020 Democrat Platform (Updated)

GATEWAY PUNDIT noted: …CNN hosted a seven-hour climate hysteria event on Wednesday and Democrats went hog wild. By the end, they’d called for bans on plastic straws, red meat (especially cheeseburgers), incandescent lightbulbs, gas-powered cars, airplanes. They also want an end to fossil fuels, oil drilling, fracking, natural gas exploration and coal plants, along with nuclear energy.

Adapted a bit from LOUDER with CROWDER:

ONE: culling the population of undesirables (the poor) through genocide.

[….]

TWO: Deciding what we can and cannot EAT!

“My body, my choice” my ass. Now you’re telling us what we can and cannot consume.

Kamala says she wants to “ban certain behaviors.” Not like killing your baby. No that’s fine. Especially if it’s some poor brown baby. But eating cheeseburgers or meat at all, that’s verboten.

Oh sure, Kamala is talking about reconstituting the food pyramid and “incentivizing” certain behaviors. But let’s play this out. Take a cheeseburger and treat it like cigarettes, which have a “sin” tax to de-incentivize smoking. The sin is just eating that which tastes good….

[….]

FOUR: Banning things we use, as small as a plastic straw to as large as our gasoline-powered cars….

Almost all the candidates want to stop oil, gas, and coal selling/production. Gas powered cars will be a thing of the past — almost immediately — if they get their way.

DAILY CALLER video

GRABIAN video

I updated a post showing the impossibility of Trump being a “Russian Asset” as the MSM and Democrats said for almost 3-years. Here is the updated portion:

when oil prices rise above $60-$65 a barrel… fracking increases supply, serving as an effective cap on energy prices. (Broadly speaking, the same principle is true of natural gas prices.) Putin’s government revenue and foreign policy are dependent on high crude prices and foreign nations buying their crude from Russia. Lower prices due to U.S. or other nations’ competition cost him a lot of money, and put the Russian economy and his public support at risk. Even more importantly, it deprives him of the tool of energy blackmail, which he has used to extort other countries into adopting Kremlin-friendly foreign policy choices. This is why Russian intelligence services have been so active in supporting western environmental groups and other interests opposed to fracking. (WASHINGTON EXAMINER — in other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates energy policies will enrich Putin.)

WATTS UP WITH THAT has a linked DAILY CALLER article that highlights 7-BANS by the candidates:

1: Biden Applauds The Green New Deal

“I think the Green New Deal deserves an enormous amount of credit,” former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper before listing off what he considers to be the problems with the much-criticized idea to stop global warming.

He noted that “85 percent of the problem” (climate change) is coming from the rest of the world.

2. Harris Says She Would Ding The Filibuster To Implement The GND

“If [Republicans] fail to act, as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal,” Sen. Kamala Harris of California said to audience applause.

Harris said Republicans should “look in the mirror and ask themselves why they failed to act,” calling the fight for the GND one “against powerful interests.” Democrats would need to win Senate control along with the presidency to have any hope of ending the longstanding tradition.

3. Yang Won’t Talk About Electric Cars

Yang skirted questions about whether every American will need to drive electric cars in the future. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Yang why he would promise federal funds for “potentially risky” and experimental means of energy production.

“We’re here together because we can. This is a crisis. In a crisis, all solutions have to be on the table. If you were attacking on one side, you should be researching various alternatives on the other side. That to me is just responsible management and responsible leadership,” Yang explained.

4. Sanders’ One Word Answer To A Question About Light Bulbs

“The Trump administration announced plans to overturn requirements on energy-saving lightbulbs. … Would you reinstate those requirements?” CNN’s Cooper asked Sanders, who has described himself as a self-avowed democratic socialist.

The Vermont senator answered with one word: “Duh.” Sanders’ comment came several hours after the Trump administration announced new rules Wednesday rolling back requirements for energy-saving light bulbs.

(Read it all at WUWT)

See some more articles:

Scientific Explanations, To Be True Need Also To Be Falsifiable

(Post picture is of Karl Popper) Even though I use the neo-Darwinian theory as my prime example, this applies just as readily to the conspiracy theories revolving around the New World Order, and the like. You can visit my “Conspiracy Mantras” page to go to some of my posts on the various topics, there.

“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

Skell, P.S., Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005; quoted by Jonathan Sarfati in Creation 36(4):1 September 2014.

Charles “The Hammer” Krauthammer makes this point in regards to the Climate Change frenzy:

Here are some examples (via the CORBETT REPORT)

The following is one of the reasons I reject Darwinian evolution (and, frankly, conspiracy theories like WTC-7 being a conspiracy), and any scientist would reject anything for.

“Insofar as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and insofar as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London, England: Hutchinson & Co, 1959), 316; found in, Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution? Observations from a Scientist of Faith (Portland, OR: Master Books, 2006), 11. (See also: SCIENCE AS FALSIFICATION)

That is to say, if a theory explains everything it explains nothing:

“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason….

The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”

The above is from an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.

Another Quote

DARWIN CONCEIVED OF EVOLUTION in terms of small variations among organisms, variations which by a process of accretion allow one species to change continuously into another. This suggests a view in which living creatures are spread out smoothly over the great manifold of biological possibilities, like colors merging imperceptibly in a color chart.

Life, however, is absolutely nothing like this. Wherever one looks there is singularity, quirkiness, oddness, defiant individuality, and just plain weirdness. The male redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti), for example, is often consumed during copulation. Such is sexual cannibalism the result, biologists have long assumed, of “predatory females overcoming the defenses of weaker males.” But it now appears that among Latrodectus hasselti, the male is complicit in his own consump­tion. Having achieved intromission, this schnook performs a character­isti somersault, placing his abdomen directly over his partner’s mouth. Such is sexual suicide—awfulness taken to a higher power.

It might seem that sexual suicide confers no advantage on the spider, the male passing from ecstasy to extinction in the course of one and the same act. But spiders willing to pay for love are apparently favored by female spiders (no surprise, there); and female spiders with whom they mate, entomologists claim, are less likely to mate again. The male spider perishes; his preposterous line persists.

This explanation resolves one question only at the cost of inviting another: why such bizarre behavior? In no other Latrodectus species does the male perform that obliging somersault, offering his partner the oblation of his life as well as his love. Are there general principles that specify sexual suicide among this species, but that forbid sexual suicide elsewhere? If so, what are they Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then, is its use? Why is the Pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird, which often starves to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover bioluminescence, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do the bees do their dance, but not the spider or the flies; and why are women, but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even more alluring than they already are?

Why? Yes, why? The question, simple, clear, intellectually respect­able, was put to the Nobel laureate George Wald. “Various organisms try various things,” he finally answered, his words functioning as a verbal shrug, “they keep what works and discard the rest.”

But suppose the manifold of life were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants but not fireflies flickered enticingly at twi­light, or that women but not cats were born with lush tails. What then? An inversion of life’s fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evo­lutionary biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, an interesting example of a Darwinian mechanism in the development of Darwinian thought itself.

A comparison with geology is instructive. No geological theory makes it possible to specify precisely a particular mountain’s shape; but the underlying process of upthrust and crumbling is well understood, and geologists can specify something like a mountain’s generic shape. This provides geological theory with a firm connection to reality. A mountain arranging itself in the shape of the letter “A” is not a physically possible object; it is excluded by geological theory.

The theory of evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling anything out of court. That job must be done by nature. But a theory that can confront any contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control of the facts is an illusion.

David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2009), 45-47. 

So too is the conspiratorial view of history (Bilderbergers, Council of Foreign Relations, Banking Institutions, Rosicrucians, The Knights Templars, on-and-on). It is used as an over-arching meta-narrative by Marxists, libertarians, anarcho-leftists, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, druggies (stoners), to Christian Evangelicals.

Illuminati - New World order

If someone or something disproves an aspect of this theory that person is branded a “shill” ~ or the fact has been “planted” by those in power who wish people to believe this “counter-point.” It explains everything and therefore nothing.

It becomes a metaphysical explanation… religious, so-to-speak. God, or theism, while having evidential aspects, IS ultimately a metaphysical program, and thus, outside of material explanations. So is evolutionary naturalism as well as the New World Order — taking into account the above.


Post-Script


Before getting to two fun videos, I want to give an example of the depth of people not self-reflecting on what they are saying… applying it to themselves to see if their sweeping statements are true or just platitudes. After explaining via another site’s excellent work refuting yet another convoluted “matrix” of conspiratorial shenanigans regarding World Trade Tower Seven (WTC-7),  I got this “challenge”?

  • Shaun your proof that Chemtrails are working!

Besides spelling my name wrong, here is my response (reformatted for ease of reading… but response 100% intact):

Jeffrey M.C., you believe in chem-trails?

As with other issues, like with an atheist saying Christianity is a crutchnot realizing that this argument cuts both ways and that atheism can be a crutch to escape judgement and wanting to live under an umbrella of full autonomy in the universe [being your own god]this argument cuts both ways.

If chemtrails were a program to control one’s thinking in some way, why would it be proof if someone rejected “conspiracies”? Why couldn’t people who believe in whatever conspiracy theory be evidence for the program?

Like I point out in my “Alex Jones Section,” and elsewhere conspiracy people think Jones is being controlled by the New World Order to spread misinformation — leading people away from the more important conspiracies.

And that is the pointsmall phrases like “pull-it” are taken [ripped] from their context, the evidence from the two parties involved in those [actual] conversations are ignored, and a matrix of unfounded and false evidence is then laid on top of this phrase and then after this is distorted… people move on to the next myopic point to do the same.

MUCH LIKE when skeptics or the cults come in and rip a small portion of the text out of context, ignore the clear testimony of those involved in the verse itself, and lay a false history or hermeneutic over the textmoving on to do the same with another verse. [Like Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example with John 1:1]

In other words

  • your contention,
  • or the person who says these programs are to obfuscate the “real conspiracies,”

use the same amount of evidence [hint, inference only] and the competing contentions raised by conspiracy theorists are not provable of disprovable. BECAUSE there will always be another contention [twisted as discussed inferred] to explain away the refutation.

For instance, I make good arguments against the main propositions used to support the deliberated destruction of WTC-7and I am tricked by chemtrails. You see, there is no winning

…[and I linked to this post]…

And thus, no information [truth] is passed on.

I further explain for people who cannot pick-up what I am laying down:

In other words

I could simply respond to Vytas S. when he said,

  • “Sean, I remember watching a CNN video of the countdown to when Building 7 came down,”

by saying:

  • Vytas, you’re proof that Chemtrails work!

[“Proof” ~ as used above ~ should be in quotation marks signifying another intent for it.]

Here is M.C.’s response (try not to laugh):

On the same Note Sean how do you know your information is correctthink about it. Most media information is impregnated with NWO progressive Liberal Spinbull. Alex has dedicated his life exposing mainstream media no matter who is in White House. If he is only right 30% of the time we are screwed. I will say he is right about 83% of the time and have watched his truths come to the forefront. ChemTrails are real…. and a threat to all of us. Weather Manipulation IS FOR REAL!. The Fight between Republicans and Democraps is a manipulated NWO Farce to keep us occupied and seperated…. WAKE UP AMERICA!

There is no way to argue reasonably with such a person… he will explain e v e r y t h i n g as a conspiracy — so I tap out — as truth is unknowable in his scenario.


Movie Time


Amazon Fires (Climate Depot)

The following is from the voluminousness collecting of CLIMATE DEPOT, saved here for use as DEPOT’S front-page often changes to refute the latest scare. Enjoy yhe many links and info below… there is a video at the bottom of Marc Morano discussing the issue PRIOR to the G7.

  • The Amazon rainforest is not the “lungs of the Earth” – It does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen. The Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

AMAZON IS NOT THE ‘LUNGS OF THE EARTH’ SAY SCIENTISTS (NEWSMAX):

Some experts say claims that the Amazon fires are burning “Earth’s lungs” and threatening the planet’s oxygen supply are false, reports Fox News.

The assertion has caught traction as celebrities, environmentalists and political leaders have blamed Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for destroying the world’s largest rainforest, which they say is the “lungs of the world.”

  • “The Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire,” tweeted French President Emanuel Macron.
  • “The lungs of the Earth are in flames,” said actor Leonardo DiCaprio. 
  • “The Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of the world’s oxygen,” tweeted soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo.

Dan Nepstad, president and founder of Earth Innovation Institute, told Forbes there’s no science behind the claims.

“The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash,” he said.

Scott Denning, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, says the fires don’t threaten the planet’s oxygen supply.

“Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests — and indeed, all land plants — is very close to zero,” Denning wrote Tuesday in a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN essay…. TO WIT

The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80% following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.

Some media accounts have suggested that fires in the Amazon also threaten the atmospheric oxygen that we breathe. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted on Aug. 22 that “the Amazon rain forest—the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen—is on fire.”

The oft-repeated claim that the Amazon rainforest produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen is based on a misunderstanding. In fact nearly all of Earth’s breathable oxygen originated in the oceans, and there is enough of it to last for millions of years. There are many reasons to be appalled by this year’s Amazon fires, but depleting Earth’s oxygen supply is not one of them.

OXYGEN FROM PLANTS

As an atmospheric scientist, much of my work focuses on exchanges of various gases between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Many elements, including oxygen, constantly cycle between land-based ecosystems, the oceans and the atmosphere in ways that can be measured and quantified.

Nearly all free oxygen in the air is produced by plants through photosynthesis. About one-third of land photosynthesis occurs in tropical forests, the largest of which is located in the Amazon Basin.

But virtually all of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis each year is consumed by living organisms and fires. Trees constantly shed dead leaves, twigs, roots and other litter, which feeds a rich ecosystem of organisms, mostly insects and microbes. The microbes consume oxygen in that process.

Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests—and indeed, all land plants—is very close to zero.

[….]

Even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1% of the world’s oxygen would be consumed.

In sum, Brazil’s reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure.

WUWT FIRES POSTS

Selective and Misplaced Outrage at Brazil’s President Bolsonaro over Amazonian Fires

CLIMATE DEPOT STUFF….

NASA: GLOBAL WILDFIRES DROP BY 25% SINCE 2003 – PLUS STUDY FINDS EARTH’S TREE COVER INCREASED BY 7% SINCE 1982

“Since NASA satellites program MODIS began collecting measurements there has been a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent.” –NASA Earth Observatory, August 2019

“News reports about the Amazon fires strike a fear that one of the last great forests is disappearing.  That’s completely untrue. Forests are making a comeback! More precisely, the tree cover of the planet is increasing.  Since 1982, a recent peer-reviewed paper in Nature suggests, the planet’s tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 (an increase of roughly 7%).”  –Vincent Geloso, American Institute for Economic Research, 26 August 2019

YOU HAVE BEEN AMAZON.CONNED – NASA: AMAZON RAINFOREST BURNING AT ‘BELOW AVERAGE’ RATES, WORST SINCE 2010 – FIRES MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS – BOLIVIA’S ‘SOCIALIST’ WILDFIRES IGNORED

NASA: Amazon Is Burning At ‘Below Average’ Rates

Update: NASA: Uptick in Amazon Fire Activity in 2019 – August 19, 2019: “With the fire season in the Amazon approaching its midpoint, scientists using NASA satellites to track fire activity have confirmed an increase in the number and intensity of fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010.”

Amazon rainforest fires at record high levels? ‘This is a blatant lie’ – Fires ‘nowhere close to a record so far in 2019’-“The NY Times claims 2019 fires are way up, over 2018. That is correct. What they don’t say, is that about 1/2 the years BEFORE 2019 are higher, and about 1/2 are lower. Cherry picking of the first order.”

FALSE ALARM: AMAZON BURNING IS MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS

Bolivia’s Wildfires Ignored By The BBC – The Reason? ‘Evo Morales is a socialist, unlike Brazil’s Bolsonaro’ –Of course, Evo Morales is a socialist, unlike Brazil’s Bolsonaro. But I am sure that had nothing to do with the BBC’s lack of interest in this story!
“The Amazon rainforest is not the “lungs of the Earth” – It does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen. The Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.”

Wash Post shoddy Amazon fire reporting: Resorts to anecdotal ‘memories’ instead of actual scientific data: ‘I cannot remember any other big fire’ & the highest ‘I have ever seen’

AMAZON FIRES – A BIG, FAT NOTHINGBURGER OF A #FAKENEWS SCARE STORY

The fires are mainly in agricultural areas as farmers prepare their land for planting. The land was cleared in the past.

An informative article and very informative map by NYT on Amazon fires. Map shows that fires in previously cleared land. Nothing new. Furore is yet another fraud by enviro activists. TWITTER PIC

FALSE ALARM: AMAZON BURNING IS MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS

So why are there so many fires? “Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture,” soberly explains The New York Times. “Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use.”

It is routine for farmers and ranchers in tropical areas burn their fields to control pests and weeds and to encourage new growth in pastures. What about deforestation trends?  Since the right-wing nationalist Jair Bolsonaro became Brazil’s president, rainforest deforestation rates have increased a bit, but they are still way below their earlier highs:

ENVIRONMENTALIST SHELLENBERGER: WHY EVERYTHING THEY SAY ABOUT THE AMAZON, INCLUDING THAT IT’S THE ‘LUNGS OF THE WORLD,’ IS WRONG

While the number of fires in 2019 is indeed 80% higher than in 2018, it’s just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years ago.

SCIENTISTS PUSH BACK ON ‘EXAGGERATED’ AMAZON FIRE CLAIMS – ‘FIRES ARE BEING USED TO CRUSH BOLSONARO POLITICALLY AND VILIFY HIM’

Marc Morano: “The Brazilian president has been labeled a ‘climate denier’ by the media, thus he must be stopped. The Amazon fires are being used to crush Bolsonaro politically and vilify him. The fires in Bolivia are being ignored by the media because Bolivia’s government is socialist and does not fit the narrative of evil ‘right-wing,’” Mr. Morano said. “Bolivia is protected from media criticism because they are the politically correct political leaders.” …

Climate scientist Roy Spencer had another term for the fires: “normal agriculture.” I think the media focus on this is misplaced and exaggerated, as is virtually every weather-related story that appears these days,” said Mr. Spencer, a former NASA scientist who does consulting on global crop-market forecasting.“The driest years in Brazil will have the most fires set by farmers,” the professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said in an email. “That isn’t a climate story, it’s normal agriculture in a country where 50 million people living in poverty are trying to survive.” …

Environmentalist Mike Shellenberger: “The photos you saw weren’t of today’s fires in Brazil – Amazon isn’t the “lungs of the world” – Deforestation is 75% below 2004 peak – *Forest* fires not increasing – Fires 7% more than decadal ave. – Here’s why everything they say about the Amazon is wrong https://t.co/dQIIwv5DRq

The incidence of fire was higher from 2003 to 2007 and in 2010, during the administration of former Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a member of the Workers’ Party, although he received little in the way of an international backlash.

WASH POST SHODDY AMAZON FIRE REPORTING: RESORTS TO ANECDOTAL ‘MEMORIES’ INSTEAD OF ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA: ‘I CANNOT REMEMBER ANY OTHER BIG FIRE’ & THE HIGHEST ‘I HAVE EVER SEEN’

WaPo Key Excerpts: “I cannot remember any other big fire episode like this one,” said Vitor Gomes, an environmental scientist at the Federal University of Para.

…Ricardo Mello, head of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Amazon program, struggled to find the words to describe his pessimism on Thursday.

“It’s historically — this is highest number [of fires] I’ve ever seen,” he said.

Climate Depot Note: You don’t have to  “have seen or “remember” past fires based on one or two peoples limited memory and exposure. We have actual scientific data to show us what is happening and the data does not support these false “memories” that the Post cites twice in their feature article.

BRAZIL’S BOLSONARO GETS BLAMED FOR SAME AMAZON FIRES ALSO PLAGUING SOCIALIST BOLIVIA – BUT MEDIA IGNORES!

“The left is doing its level best to blame Brazil’s bush fires on Brazil’s conservative, Trump-like president, Jair Bolsonaro, and get him thrown out of office…Socialist President Evo Morales has openly encouraged what’s known, at least in Venezuela, as “conuco” agriculture, telling subsistance farmers it’s fine to set of fires to gather charcoal to sell for fuel or clear the land of brush for planting, and now he’s refusing international firefighting help.”

“Now Bolivia is robbing them of their rimshot argument. No more Sting and the rainforest man for their “narrative” now. What appears to be a far more desperate and mismanaged situation is going on Bolivia, and we don’t see any eurochicken clucking about the “lungs of the world” or sanctioning the socialist hellhole. The European Union and much of the G-7 are focused exclusively on Brazil and putting the screws to Bolsonaro blaming him for a broader temporary weather phenomenon. It’s starting to look political and it would be a welcome thing if President Trump sticks up for the man among the clucker. Bolivia makes their hypocrisy show.”

DAY AFTER STATING NO LINK, NY TIMES BLAMES AMAZON FIRES ON ‘GLOBAL WARMING’

ABC’s Climate Predictions Made in 2008 about 2015

RUSH: Our buddies at the Media Research Center went back to their archives and they dragged up (or dragged out) a Good Morning America promo for a climate change special ABC was running back in 2008. Good Morning America played a promo for a special that aired that fall called Earth 2100, and I want to play for you a portion of the promo. Remember, ABC played this in 2008, 11 years ago on Good Morning America…

More from RUSH:

PETER GLEICK: (dramatic music) In 2015, we’ve still failed to address the climate problem!

JOHN HOLDREN: We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more (fire noise) wildfires!

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (channel change sound effect) Flames cover hundreds of square miles.

MAN 1: (storm b-roll noise) We expect more intense hurricanes!

MAN 2: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t really know where the end is.

MAN 3: (channel change sound effect) Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

MAN 4: (channel change sound effect) Agricultural production’s dropping because temperatures are rising!

HEIDI CULLEN: (images of hungry people) There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows!

TEENAGE BOY: (prediction of the future) It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.

MAN 5: (prediction of the future) Gas has reached over $9 a gallon!

MAN 6: I’m scared (bleep) right now. But I have to get this out.

RUSH: It was a bunch of young people in this ad. They were predicting that by 2015 — four years ago — milk would be 13 bucks a gallon, gasoline over $9 a gallon. The video effects show Manhattan half underwater

Australian Election Summed Up Well

WEASEL ZIPPERS hat-tiup:

AUSTRALIAN SPECTATOR:

The majority of the mainstream media have for months predicted either a Labor landslide, or a comfortable Labor win, with only a handful of pundits brave enough to suggest that the Liberals could or might win – but I repeatedly and consistently said on Sky News for the last six months that the Liberals would win and I never deviated from that prediction. None of the polls or prominent experts picked it, although of course writers at The Spectator Australia such as David Flint and John Ruddick most certainly did.

[….]

Laughably, a veritable army of commentators, pundits, doyens of the ABC on massive taxpayer-funded salaries and other red-faced experts spent election night blithering and blathering that nobody foresaw this result. Which is nonsense. We did.

The more important question is why those of us at this magazine and on this website who foresaw the result were correct.

For my part, quite possibly the fact that I am one of Australia’s more open global warming sceptics gives me an insight into how normal, real people – away from the latte-sipping, wealthy SUV-driving trendy inner-city types – actually think. This was indeed an election dominated by climate change. Labor put forward the most radical left-wing climate polices at the very time when, in various places around the world, voters who have lived with these policies are rejecting them. Common sense Australians have now rejected them too, recognising that climate change policies would financially damage them severely whilst achieving no change whatsoever to the planet’s temperatures, as was admitted by Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. Australians have woken up to the fact that climate change is simply socialism in drag.

This was the climate change election, and climate change lost. This was the socialism versus capitalism election, and socialism lost. This was the identity politics versus traditional values election, and identity politics lost. This was the political correctness versus common sense election, and political correctness lost. This was the luvvies versus the tradies and small business people election, and the luvvies lost.

Take note those of you in the virtue-signalling business world who sneer at people because of their religious beliefs, their love of Australia, their traditional family and conservative values. If you pander to the Left and allow your business to be hostage to left wing activism, you lose. You lose market share. You lose profit. You lose customers. And now, as we have seen you lose votes….

The Green Deal’s Clown Shoes

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

John and Ken interview Mark Mills about the impossibility of society going fully “green energy.” The PDF report by Mark Mills via the Manhattan Institute can be found here: