German Geophysicist: “AGW Built On Failed Scientific Assumptions And Economic Speculations”

Challenging AGW on the Eve of Destruction

Guest essay by Uli Weber, Geophysicist, Germany

Since the G7-summit at Elmau Castle (2015) and the climate summit COP21 in Paris (2015) the declared political aim of all governments of the world is a global decarbonisation until the year 2100 to save our planet from anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The AGW-paradigm is allegedly supported by 97% of all climate scientists worldwide and global decarbonisation has even been recommended by religious leaders.

And recently, on the 22nd of April 2016, representatives from about 170 nations officially signed the Paris Climate Convention for global decarbonisation at the United Nations in New York.

But are we really been forced by future anthropogenic global warming to ruin our life-standards through such a complete disruption of our present technological basis?

Mainstream climate sciences held carbon dioxide (CO2) from the industrial use of fossil energies responsible to amplify the natural greenhouse effect until the earth becomes uninhabitable. Legions of AGW-protagonists worldwide, paid with billions of dollars from official scientific funds, private foundations, and environmental NGOs promote the public perception of an anthropogenic climate warming and call their AGW-Paradigm to be “settled science”. Furthermore, these protagonists claim “the debate is over” for their paradigm in an adverse interpretation of the true spirit of sciences and become supported by a biased majority of the public media.

Unprofitable scientific arts from outside climate sciences push themselves next to the meat-pots of climate-alarm with a rising number of papers from psychologists and historians which criticise the heretical influence from a scientific minority, slandered as “climate-deniers”, on the public recognition of AGW arguments. Recently, some climate active politicians even aim to silence “climate deniers” by trying to criminalize their scientific standpoint. Such independent climate scientists with diverging scientific results on global warming are performing their scientific work mainly with poor budgets or even on a free voluntary basis. And instead of a fair and open scientific debate about their arguments they usually become publicly denounced in their personal credibility while mainstream climate sciences try to exorcize them from the scientific community.

It seems today that the moral of sciences has become progressively infected from its well-paid trustees and their political and medial supporters by the virus of noble cause corruption aiming for a better carbon-free world in future.

Facing such aimed global decarbonisation to happen we may not forget that through the cultural evolution of mankind the available energy per capita has been repeatedly multiplied and has improved the standards of living for us all:

  • Stone Age (= small local villages): Available energy per capita was about the 3-6-fold of the basic human need.
  • Times of Agriculture (= advanced regional civilisations): Available energy per capita was about the 18-24-fold of the basic human need.
  • Industrial Times (= networked global city): Available energy per capita is about the 70-80-fold of the basic human need.

The industrial use of fossil energies since begin of industrialisation has sustainable increased the public health, our individual life expectancy, our common life standards, the general quality and availability of food, the public and individual transport, communications, and the affordable technologies for everyone.

That means our recent civilisation is existentially dependent on technologies fed by fossil fuels.

The basic principle of anthropogenic global warming could be easily understood by everyone without any scientific education:

The higher the atmospheric CO2 content rises the more will the global mean temperature increase.

Consequently, it is believed by an overwhelming majority of citizens in the industry nations that mankind’s consumption of fossil energies will cause anthropogenic global warming through the emission of CO2.

But is the feared relationship between CO2 and global warming really settled science?

The AGW-paradigm stands in fundamental contradiction to several scientific and economic facts:

  1. Missing reversibility of climate models: Computer models for the future climate progression are not even capable to simulate the natural climate backward to the beginning of systematic temperature records about the year 1850. This inherent imperfection of recent climate models proves that neither all parameters which influence our climate, nor their effective magnitude, nor their factual interaction are correctly implemented in the climate computer models. With these imperfect models climate sciences calculate the course of global temperatures far into future while politicians anchor their arguments for a global decarbonisation on such results.
  2. Climate sciences are incapable to separate the drivers of climate change: No quantitative separation between the factual contributions of natural and anthropogenic drivers to global climate forcing has been published to date. The measurements of global temperature data started around the year 1850, at the end of the historical “Little Ice Age” and begin of industrialisation. There must have been a natural rise of temperatures since then because this “Little Ice Age” has ended without manmade contributions. But in contrary, climate sciences account the whole temperature rise since on AGW with the argument of early industrialisation, although the rise of temperature was much faster than the global course of industrial development.
  3. Climate models ignore the influence of the natural solar cycles on global climate. The known solar cycles (Schwabe, Hale, Yoshimura, Gleißberg, Seuss-de-Vries, Dansgaard-Oeschger, and Hallstatt) with periodicities between 11 and more than 2.000 years are not included in future climate models. Argument is the small absolute variation of solar forcing through such cycles although these variations were definitely the only source for natural climate changes in our recent climate optimum before industrialisation. The finding of Svensmark, the nucleation of clouds from cosmic rays which are controlled by the magnetic field of the sun, is still ignored by mainstream climate sciences. This effect acts as a natural atmospheric amplifier for the variations of solar forcing through a reverse variance of the Earth’s albedo from the global cloud coverage, i.e. a weak sun causes more clouds and conclusively additional cooling. The CLOUD-Experiment at the Zurich CERN Institute has disproved the aerosol formation in present climate models by a factor of one‐tenth to one‐thousandth and found an enhanced nucleation from the Svensmark-effect up to a factor of 10. Last access dated May 13th, 2012
  4. The well documented historical Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which preceded the “Little Ice Age” has been suppressed by the “hockeystick-curve” from Mann et al. in the IPCC TAR (report 2001), apparently to promote the AGW-Paradigm of a constant natural pre-industrial climate at “Little Ice Age”-average global temperatures. Since then, the “hockeystick” has been disproved while it’s still used as an important argument for AGW and the MWP was downgraded to a regional European phenomenon to comply further with the AGW-Paradigm. But in contrary, the analysis of hundreds of scientific papers worldwide by Luning and Vahrenholt proves that the Medieval Warm Period has truly been a global occurrence caused by natural solar variations and consequently questions the AGW-Paradigm vitally. Online atlas by Luning/Vahrenholt:

  5. Climate sciences deny the natural orbital cycles in their climate models and try to defend their simple linear relation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Recently, AGW protagonists reduce their view on the past climate succession even further to the second half of the 20th century and try to establish CO2 as the main paleoclimate driver. Already in the year 1924 Wladimir Köppen and Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of modern plate-tectonics, have published the scientific proof that the paleoclimate variability of the past hundred thousands of years is directly related to the orbital Milanković cycles. Reprint “Die Klimate der geologischen Vorzeit” (Bornträger 1924) with an English translation: https://www.schweizerbart.deDE
  6. Growing acidification of the oceans caused by anthropogenic CO2-emissions is feared to reduce the richness of marine species in future. Firstly, a specific quantity of CO2 could either act as climate active gas on global warming or could cause acidification being resolved in the ocean, not both at the same time. But usually, both effects are calculated with the maximum amount of anthropogenic CO2-emissions. Secondly, the maximum possible amount of dissolved CO2 is reversely proportional to the water temperature. Consequently, the warmer the water becomes the less CO2 could be resolved in the oceans and cause acidification. The delayed rise of the atmospheric CO2 content from increasing paleoclimate temperatures supports this causal relationship and is proven by ice-core analyses.
  7. A global sea-level rise from melting glaciers caused by AGW shall flood the Pacific islands and drown lowlands and harbour cities all over the world. A dramatic retreat of glaciers causing a sea-level rise of about hundred meters is a natural phenomenon at begin of interglacial warm times. It seems that marine ice masses are completely controlled by the sea-water temperature while terrestrial ice masses are bound to vertical variations of the global climatic zones. As temperatures are not constant within interglacial warm periods, the lower margin of terrestrial glaciers uses to fluctuate uphill when it becomes warmer and downhill when it becomes cold. Retreating glaciers often release ancient trees which are proving that their margins have been located far uphill in historic times. What we could recently observe at Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula is a glacier retreat to higher altitudes and not a complete melting while at the same time the ice masses of East Antarctica are still growing further. Alarming satellite altimeter data for the sea-level rise of the open ocean are much more prone to errors from an exact correction of the local lunar tides, the local contribution of permanent water circulations, additional water masses driven by wind and local wave heights, and the actual local air pressure than the data from fixed costal gauges.     The usual coastal sea level gauge records show a global sea-level rise at a constant rate since Little Ice Age times without any AGW contribution and will probably continue to do so – if no purposeful corrections were applied in future…
  8. The “hiatus” of the global mean temperature rise, lasting about twenty years now, has already caused multiple adjustments of the original historic temperature data. Updated climate models use then to transfer the “missing heat” into the deeper layers of the oceans. Obviously, digital climate models couldn’t foresee the actual “hiatus” of the global mean temperature rise. But instead of improving actual climate models by altering their false initial conditions to comply with the factual measured climate succession, these climate models are permanently adjusted in their results to meet the outmoded earlier published climate forecasts. Questions remains how that missing heat could escape to deeper ocean layers without been recognized by the ARGO buoy network which is globally distributed over the oceans.
  9. Mainstream climate sciences restrict the effect of future global warming to the negative spectrum of their computer speculations and spread scientific horror scenarios about a manmade future global warming of about three degrees centigrade until the year 2100 into the public attention while every winter ten thousands of people die from cold. For the year 2014 about 40.000 winter deaths in Europe have been reported because people couldn’t pay their bills for electrical power. Last access dated April 9th, 2016
  10. Climate sciences claim that global decarbonisation follows the precautionary principle for the future of all mankind in avoiding AGW. The last major climate prophecy was published just in time before the COP21 Paris summit by well pampered minions of the Apocalypse: Anthropogenic CO2-emissions will prevent the next ice-age to happen – in 50.000 years! Is it truly the precautionary principle to save an endangered ice-age in 50.000 years from now? No, it’s genuine science-fiction when mainstream climate sciences ignore solid geo-scientific knowledge from some hundred thousand years of paleoclimate succession and extrapolate a lost ice-age in 50.000 years from their reduced retrospective of a few past decades. With the provision to save the world from its natural climate succession we are devastating our present economies and the future of our children and grandchildren. But what’s about the real global hazards that may endanger mankind’s future within the next 50.000 years, what’s about super-volcano eruptions, asteroid strikes, and the decline of the geo-magnetic field, what is the precautionary principle against these realistic threads?
  11. Renewable energies from sunlight and wind shall replace energy generated from oil, gas, and coal to avoid AGW through CO2 emissions. Recently, renewable energies could only be produced at uneconomic costs with huge subventions directly raised from the majority of consumers and hence indirectly generated from fossil-fed industrial production. To preserve our common standards of living and technology through a future global decarbonisation the required global energy amount must be fully replaced from renewable sources. There are numbers circulating in the media that global decarbonisation is affordable and executable until the year 2100. But the published investments to establish a complete renewable energy production do not even include the costs for the indispensable energy storages and new distribution networks to guaranty the energy supply through nights and windless times nor do they include the rising energy costs for almost every product to be supplied in future. From such rising costs at presumably decreasing production numbers national economies may suffer with less income for employees or even less employees at all. Question remains how the rising subventions for renewable energy shall be paid from decreasing industrial productivity.
  12. The landscape consumption in natural environments for renewable energy production from sunlight and wind is thousand to ten thousand times greater than the areal demand of equal productive conventional power plants. Question must be raised then what will happen through a future decarbonisation to our global natural resources.
  13. At the same time pressure is made on our industrial-scale agriculture to deteriorate to organic production without chemical fertilizers. Agricultural food production stands in competition with the land consumption for renewable energies. Through the ecological food-to-fuel program, i.e. the use of ethanol as a renewable fuel for cars, the effective agricultural acreage for global food production has already been decreased while millions of people worldwide still suffer from undernutrition and hunger. Consequently, the aimed global organic food production with a reduced per acreage productivity of farmland may not meet the demand of a further growing world population…

This synopsis provides evidence that the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been built on failed scientific assumptions and economic speculations.

Nevertheless, the prophets of AGW are still spreading their speculations of doom further like an anthropogenic mass madness promoting a wide bunch of divergent objectives against our present economic system which is based on the availability of affordable energy from fossil fuels. The deep religious belief in AGW remains their ultimate tool to destroy our present technical civilisation and to misdirect mankind into a brave new carbon-free world.

We are living now in a next age of cultural evolution, the Anthropocene, where the fundamental differences between scientific facts, personal opinions and religious faiths have become successively blurred while sated people seem truly believe one can slaughter the cow and still drink the milk.

The true global problem of mankind remains the steady increase of the world’s population and its supply with sufficient food and energy as well as the preservation of the global natural resources which are a heritage of us all.

Poverty in the Third World is basically caused by a lack of energy and democratic participation.

The only way out of this dilemma is a democratisation and economic development of the poor countries which would not be possible without fossil energies. Such development would prevent the world population to grow further as proven by the standstill of population growth in the industry nations since begin of industrialisation. Through a development process of the Third World the fossil energy consumption in the industry nations may be minimized at recent standards of living while the protection of the world’s natural resources could be successively improved.

But with their religious belief in AGW the elected and unelected political leaders all over the world, supported by fortune tellers from climate sciences, by biased mainstream media, by faithful heads of religions, and by misguided ecological NGOs and Malthusian foundations, have now decided that mankind shall take quite the opposite direction. Their roadmap into the urgently demanded global decarbonisation until the year 2100 may then cause a fall of democratic rights in the industry nations on the way into a sustainable global energy shortage with Malthusian perspectives for an agricultural Global Third World of organic smallholders. Or, to say it more clearly, in a carbon free world the majority of people worldwide, whatever their absolute number will be then, may work twelve hours a day in organic agriculture to produce one fourth of the present available energy per capita – just as it was in the good old pre-industrial times.

And now, on this eve of destruction, the majority of affected people stands silent aside while the apocalyptical riders of global decarbonisation are going to wreck the future of all mankind …


Uli Weber is a geophysicist and author of the German language book: Climate hysteria is no solution.


20 responses to “German Geophysicist: “AGW Built On Failed Scientific Assumptions And Economic Speculations””

  1. David Johnson

    In years to come people will look back on these times and wonder how people could have been so stupid to fall for what has become the biggest scam in the history of mankind

    1. Jeff

      If the environuts get their ultimate goal, there will be no people left to complain about their evil deeds.

  2. Athelstan.

    Energy is freedom, plentiful, abundant cheap Energy brings, secures and promotes civilization.

    56 nations will never be civilized, they will never be democratized, they cannot feed themselves, most of these lands – they have no means of regular and plentiful supply and transmission of electrical energy, these people still live in the dark age, figuratively and literally.

    Dark ages not gone away for some and for others, dark ages soon to be revisited?

    The EU is the driver and facilitator of its own downfall and the ‘green agenda’ is just part of the dismantling of the western tradition. With, a welfare state using an open limit credit card and couple that, with ‘open doors’ – is a recipe for financial calamity. Throw in the single currency and banks which are fundamentally bust and the abyss beckons.

    It’s not just about the fiction of global warming, is it?

  3. edmh

    Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in this century, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    The postulated warming in the coming century as promoted by the IPCC and other Global Warming alarmists is collated against the progress of actual Holocene temperatures, the absolute implausibility of the Man-made Global Warming hypothesis by adding comparatively marginal amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere becomes obvious.

    All the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records show:

    * the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
    * each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
    * for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
    * but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
    * the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
    * the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has metamorphosed into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
    * eventually this late 20th century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
    * other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.

    Global warming protagonists should accept that our interglacial has been in long-term decline that has accelerated over the last 3000 years and that any action taken by Man-kind is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever.

    Were the actions by Man-kind able to avert any warming they would eventually just reinforce the catastrophic cooling that is bound to return very soon in geological time.


  4. Mindert Eiting

    Believe it or not, but I have developed a computer model that perfectly predicts the future of our human societies. It will take a certain time to evaluate the predictions for 2100, but I was able after choosing the right values for five million free parameters to reconstruct our history for half a millennium ago, two world wars, the French Revolution, the independence war of the USA, the Dutch golden age, the Reformation in Europe, everything can be reproduced by the program. I cannot publish here the predictions because I am not as cruel as mister Nostradamus. OK, one exception: the mean temperature of the earth in 2100 will be 15 degrees Celsius on the plausible assumption that the earth will not be hit by an asteroid.

  5. Svend Ferdinandsen

    It seems to me that the politicians concider reduction of CO2 to be a goal in itself. They still spice it with some words of climate friendly, environtment and so on and the 2K we must avoid, but no one ever tells what all the efforts really will do.
    Normally politicians present calculations showing the costs and benefits of regulations, but for climate it seems not to be needed.

  6. Posa

    Global de-population and de-industrialization is the common goal shared by Ruling Elites and their Malthusian foot-soldiers. Climate change- AGW etc are just a ruse… as seen by the preference for more CO2 in exchange for killing nuclear power.

    Fortunately the Malthusian disease mostly infects the West and part of Japan. The Russians, Chinese and Indians are not buying in… thus they will inherit the Earth.

    Personally at age 65 I only have a few good years left… glad I was alive when I was and not facing the future that’s in store for us all.

  7. gallopingcamel

    The “First World” consists mainly of “Democracies”. While these countries hold elections important changes seldom occur regardless of which party wins.

    I live in the USA where we have Democrats and Republicans who both promise that more and more power will be concentrated into the federal government. That approach will eventually destroy the union because states will petition to secede just as they did in 1861 but this time there will be no civil war.

    Personally I look forward to “Downsizing the USA”:

    William Willimon is a visionary who inspired me to create schools controlled by parents rather than bureaucrats:

    The Eurozone is doomed simply because bureaucrats in Brussels have too much power. They do not serve the people; they demand the people obey them. Dictatorship by bureaucrat is just another form of statism.

    Suddenly in the UK the people have thrown off the bureaucratic yoke. What will happen? I suspect that my countrymen will rediscover their competitive instincts by outperforming Germany, the strongest economy in the Eurozone. Even if they don’t their slide into third world status will slow.

    In the USA I am hoping that the “Deficit Spending” of George Bush and Barack Obama will be ended by a populist president (Donald Trump) who will run the country for the workers instead of the elites (Bankers, unions, corporations etc.).

  8. Steve Borodin

    Thanks for an excellent summary. I note that have not mentioned the satellite temperature data, which is validated by the independent weather baloon data, and which has a strong claim to be more reliable than the uneven and much altered surface temperature thermometer data. The satellites also fail to detect the ‘greenhouse’ hot spot in the equatorial troposphere. This is predicted by the small part of the science that is relatively settled, and by, as far as I can find out, most of the GCMs. These factors seem to be strong evidence that global warming is much less that normally accepted and cannot be ‘greenhouse’. Was the ommission deliberate? If so, it would be interesting to know why.

    1. Uli Weber

      Steve, thanks for your positive statement and your question. Yes, I have tried to forego complex causal relationships in my essay (i.e. natural greenhouse effect, climate sensitivity of CO2, global circulations, etc.) to avoid discussions on single topics instead the general message. Best regards Uli

  9. Konchok

    Didn’t an infamous person state or say:
    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
    CAGW is most likely IMHO a smoke screen to stop the 3rd world advancing, a nuclear agenda or simply just a scientific gravy train.

  10. Joanie Todd

    I wrote this in 2013 pointing out the primary reasons the globalists have been only creating chaos. I also cover a science based solution that puts money in its proper place.

  11. werner pluss

    Good article, thanks.

    What boggles the mind of this ‘common man’ is the fact, that apparently well educated, supposedly highly qualified, distinguish persons ignore most basic logic and common sense when it comes to the COP21 agreement.

    How can one declare a worldwide temperature as binding, when the basis for such data, the sampling points, instrumentation and measurements, is still very much ‘up in the air’? There is no standard measurement grid, land and oceans, measurements on the ground, via balloons, satellites, theoretically derived from CO2 and so forth, are subject of ‘unsettled’ arguments. And if there is no reasonably accurate, generally recognized ‘worldtemperature’, how can one then ascertain a ‘limitation below two degrees C’? And who will be the authority to regularly verify and how to correct the variance if out of kilter?

    Plenty of how, who, when, where and by whom? Question upon question and no logic answers.

    And if anyone has the illusion that the Chinese, Russians, Indians would ever recognize data from NOAA or NASA and amputate their economies, just like that, simply because the IPCC orders emergency stop of developments, due to the ‘worldtemperature’ being at 2,1 degrees instead of below 2, that person can really not be helped.

    Their reaction is already programmed: the West, and foremost the USA, have already had the luxury and profited from cheap fossil fuel, developed their economies, health, cultural and social infrastructure, for over a century, with ‘stolen’ third world resources, so, please, now it is high time for you to eat humble pie, tighten your belt and reduce CO2 to zero – and then we will also see if there is a direct ‘global warming’ causality at all…

    No models needed for the conclusion: an epic conflict and waste in every respect. (And if I see something wrong, am mistaken – I am still ‘lernfähig’).

    NB: minor correction: Cern straddle Switzerland and France outside Geneva – not Zurich

    1. DirkH

      The war organisation UN was founded in 1942 against the Anti ComIntern Alliance aka the Axis Powers. After WW 2, the plan was to turn the UN into the only nuclear power (as announced by JFK, for instance). This plan failed when public opinion in the West turned against the UN after the UN masscred 100,000 people in Katanga, I think 1961.

      The UN needed a decade to come up with an alternative to the military domination plan (as proposed by the Fabians, and the beans spilled by H G Wells in Shape Of Things To Come and the movie version Things To Come).

      The alternative they came up with was gaining global control by making themselves the heroes in the fight against pollution/resource depletion etc. Enter Club Of Rome, Limits To Growth, and later, Warmunism. Now CO2 became the “pollution” the UN wanted to fight and the entire world economy the territory they wanted to conquer and control.

      This in turn created a counterreaction: The creation of the BRICS. Which are these days more like a bloc of 100 nations. They still play the game – demanding payouts for “Global Warming damage” caused by the West – so the only way the UN could get its World Empire is the same way as the multi-cultural Habsburg Empire: by BRIBING all those “vassals” – and face the explosion of their empire once the bribes are no longer forthcoming.

  12. Denis Ables

    This era definitely belongs in the next edition of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

    I hope justice will be brought against some of the “leaders” of this mindless cult.

  13. Miner49er

    Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels use does not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies seek to deceive by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Nature converts ambient CO2 to limestone. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through calcification (ie. cyanobacteria and coccolithiphores). The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make calcite quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with quicklime.

    Its simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone (calcite). The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone. 99.84% of all carbon is sequestered in sediments. Earth absorbs ambient CO2 quickly.

    Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere). But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature efficiently recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals.

    Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper

    The theory of human-caused climate change is based on a false premise. All the cost and hysteria of the global warming movement is a colossal waste, and results in poor economic growth. Tens of trillions of dollars wasted on foolish superstition, when hard working people are deprived. Energy policy as fashion goods. The dead hand of the state, picking winners & losers.

    Coal is the lowest-cost and most reliable primary energy source for electric power generation. A modern coal plant emits few air emissions except water vapor and carbon dioxide.

    1. AndyG55

      “CO2 is in equilibrium.”

      Well in nature it is probably not.

      As you say, CO2 is sequestered by conversion to carbonates.

      It is thus REMOVED from the carbon cycle, locked up in limestone etc for almost an infinite time.

      I suggest that the human release of accidentally buried carbon into the carbon cycle has been an IMMENSE BENEFIT in slightly increasing the amount of carbon available to the cycle that drives ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

    2. AndyG55

      “CO2 is in equilibrium”

      Actually, its not.

      Its ALWAYS being gradually sequestered.

      Were it not for the small amount that humans have un-buried, the world would be a far less green place.

      CO2 levels would be dangerously low for all life on Earth.

      We ABSOLUTELY MUST keep bringing sequestered carbon back into the working carbon cycle if we want to feed an increasing world population.

      1. AndyG55

        “Its ALWAYS being gradually sequestered.”

        Really bad wording.. (nice red, this 😉 )

        Carbon is always being gradually sequestered… etc etc

    3. AndyG55

      ps.. apart from that.. I agree with your whole post. 🙂

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy