Here is a time lapse video showing the effect of increased carbon dioxide on plant growth.
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 386 ppm. In this experiment, one plant-growing chamber had 450 ppm carbon dioxide, the level at which we are told will cause the world to tip into runaway global warming. The other chamber had carbon dioxide at 1270 ppm, a level most nurseries would prefer to have, and the level at which much life on earth evolved it.
See for yourself the dramatic increase in plant growth we could expect from a carbon-rich atmosphere. The well fed plant weighed 44% more than the starved one, with greater height, more leaves and far more roots. This plant not only grew faster and better, its better root system would make it more drought and heat tolerant.
Yet Penny Wong and the alarmists want us to believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and more of it would be a disaster!
Why are CSIRO and our many Departments of Agriculture so silent on this fundamental issue?
Are they all cowed, or are their well paid jobs more important than revealing the truth?
“We think that, by 2020, the cost of electricity will be threefold what it is today, given the current policy of large amounts of renewables being forced into the system, un-costed charges for those renewables given the current policy settings and a substantial increase in transmission and distribution costs.”
“As things now stand, the advocates representing the establishment climate science story broadcast (usually with color diagrams) the predictions of climate models as if they were the results of experiments – actual evidence. Alongside these multi-colored multi-century model-simulated time series come stories, anecdotes, and photos – such as the iconic stranded polar bear – dramatically illustrating climate change today. On this rhetorical strategy, the models are to be taken on faith, and the stories and photos as evidence of the models’ truth. Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”
Jason Scott Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the Institute for Law and Economics, a Joint Research Center of the Law School with the Wharton School of Economics. Report: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf [PDF, 399KB]
Here is an animated video produced by FirstEnergy available from Mining Connection (http://www.miningconnection.com/). It shows how we make electricity from coal. It also shows that the cooling towers so loved by TV to illustrate power plant pollution in fact emit only warm air and moisture – not even the demonised but harmless carbon dioxide. The invisible carbon dioxide exits via the less photogenic chimneys. So what TV usually shows to illustrate “carbon pollution” is no more polluting than what comes out of the spout of your kettle. So much for truth on TV.
Personally I look at the stupid notion of Blackout Night, in honour of the planet.
We left our caves, our sod houses of the past to enjoy modern homes. I enjoy the thought that if I’m sick and require an operation the hospital has electricity 24 hours per day, seven days per week so that the surgeon and his team can fix me or my loved ones. I enjoy the thought that at 7pm at night I can turn on a television and watch it, in the comfort of my single family dwelling home. I enjoy the thought that if I want a beverage I can go to my frost free fridge and grab a beer. I enjoy the thought that my employer has electricity and indoor plumbing so that I can defecate in the safety of my closed off cubicle.
These modern fools of Mother Earth and modern Environmentalism want to return to the yesteryears of cave dwelling pre-human existence. All I’ve ever read about pre-modern living, and that’s not all too long ago, just 100 years ago. Most men died before the age of 50 years. Children died by the thousands because of infections, and poor health quality. You were considered old when you were over 40!
Turning out the Lights glorifies stupidity, and glamorizes the progressive liberal mentality about the so called “global village”. You know what, its one village I don’t want to belong too. I’ll take living in a single dwelling home, with electricity, and my beer fridge powered by coal fired plants with modern precipitators and scrubbers installed in the gas path cleaning up the grime.
Today’s environmentalist aren’t cleaning up the stacks – they’re socialists who can’t get elected at the ballot box but are hell bent to destroy our western society so that we fit into their social activist world of stupidity and failure.
“The newest game by the banks is carbon emissions trading. The plan is to manufacture emission credit certificates out of thin air, trade them between big financial companies, and compel the rest of us pay for them by producing real goods and services. The new financial slavery.
“Carbon emission permits are the latest paper currency, brought to you by the same crowd who profited from the world’s largest financial bubble. Same structure, same modus operandi, same beneficiaries, same exaggerations, half-truths, and tricky government statistics.” [P. 2]
“Emissions trading by the finance industry was $120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over $1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, or wheat. Typically the finance industry will pocket 1% – 5% of that turnover. So even now their financial interest matches the alarmist spending, and soon will vastly exceed it.” [P. 30]
In the past, Ms Wong and Kevin Rudd have said they rely on the IPCC reports for their policy decisions. They also criticise those who disagree with the IPCC.
However, the IPCC report (2007) gives a high and low scenario for sea level rises. The high of the high scenario is a rise of 59cm for the 21st century. That is far less than the 110cm in this new report.
So is Ms Wong now saying that the IPCC is wrong? If so, why won’t she listen to the large number of sceptics who also disagree with the IPCC?
Interestingly, the report also says (p. 6), “Over the geological past this dynamism has been even more pronounced, with sea levels up to 4-6 metres higher than today and the shoreline in some places more than 500 kilometres inland.”
Clearly, those increases could not have been caused by humans, but I don’t expect the media, or Wong or Rudd, will make that point!
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to deceptive advertising regarding Global Warming Policies.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that those calling for a “Price on Carbon” should speak the truth and call it a “Tax on the Production of Carbon Dioxide”.
“Similarly the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) had nothing to do with pollution but everything to do with imposing taxes and rationing on economic activity.”
Forbes explained:
“The new green mantra chants: “We need a price on carbon”.
“Carbon is the most useful substance on earth and there is already a price on every product containing carbon – coal and oil, bread and butter, beef and bacon, oil and ethanol, beer and whisky, coffee and tea, cotton and wool, diesel and fire wood, methane and carbon dioxide, petrol and rubber – all are carbon products with an established market price.
“Those who chatter about “a price on carbon” are hiding their real aim which is to reduce human activity by taxing the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Office of Fair Trading should be investigating this deceptive election advertising.
“If this tax attempted to cover all releases of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it would indeed be “A Monster New Tax”.
“Every man and beast, every car and train, every ship and plane, every cement plant and blast furnace, every power station using coal, oil or gas, every wood stove and gas barbeque, every swamp and termite nest – all emit carbon dioxide and thus recycle carbon. Carbon feeds, powers and clothes our world. Any attempt to stop that is suicidal.
“Every producer of carbon products is already taxed – income tax and payroll tax, royalties and resource rent tax, excise and levies, permits and quotas.
“Another carbon tax would just add to the costs of everything, increase poverty, bloat the bureaucracy and send more jobs to China. The only people promoting more taxes on carbon are the anti-growth crowd and the vested interests in the alternate energy promoters.
“We didn’t want the deceitfully labelled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we don’t want a new tax labelled “A Price on Carbon”.
RSS
