Submission to
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Climate Policy Office
14th floor, Fontaine Building
200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Email: eccc.climat-climate.eccc@canada.ca
To Those in Review:
SCIENCE tells us that the current concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is 400 parts per million (ppm). SCIENCE tells us that over the last 600 million years CO2 has nested in our atmosphere in concentrations 10 to 20 times our contemporary 400 ppm. There was NO TIPPING POINT, NO RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING. We are here. This fact alone ought to quell the fears of a CO2 guided apocalypse. CO2 had its opportunity over many millions of years to trap heat and toast our planet but took a pass. Did CO2 fail its climate driving test?
SCIENCE tells us that there were many periods in pre-industrial times when temperatures exceeded or equalled those we experience today. Over the last 400,000 years three of the last 4 interglacials, the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period all experienced warmth equal to or greater than our own. Since we are told by climate gurus like Al Gore that pre-industrial CO2 levels remained stable for 800,000 years those periods of warmth could not have been a result of changes in CO2 concentration. Does this not imply that the climate changes independently of the amount of CO2 in the air? Does this make Mother Nature a Man Made Climate Change DENIER?
The last time the worldwide carbon level probably hit 400 ppm was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
That was during the Pleistocene Era. "It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 33 to 66 feet."
Would it be impertinent to ask why it isn’t that warm now that we have reached the auspicious milestone of 400 ppm in our air? Why aren’t sea levels 33 to 66 feet higher now like they were 2 million years ago? Has CO2 lost its MoJo or does it suggest that CO2 has nothing to do with either temperature or sea level rise?
It is not for me know how your mind works but mine concludes that CO2 is NOT the thermostat controlling the climate of the Earth. In which case why would you want to reduce the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, especially when our planet has been GREENING because of it? CO2 is GREEN. Isn’t that GOOD NEWS? Don’t you want a GREEN planet?
The world is greening. Why would you want to reduce CO2 emissions? You don’t like plants, animals and forests? Don’t you have to eat?
Mother Nature has already performed the high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere test of CO2 centric global warming theory and failed to ‘roast, toast, fry and grill’ all living things. There was no CO2 BBQ in our past and thus none to fear in our future.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
Could global warming’s top culprit help crops? Warmists struggle with the reality that CO2 is plant food
Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel - video 5 minutes
They mean climate change at the hands of CO2..
Perhaps this makes the social BENEFITS of CO2 PRICELESS. What do you think?
Here is a bit of truth from the scientific journals.
It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?
Climate change has nothing to do with the human emissions of CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2).
Tell the truth! Tell the truth!
Quantitative analyses of actual measurements rather than modeling have shown that “global warming” has been heterogeneous over the surface of the planet and temporally non-linear. Residual regression analyses by Soares (2010) indicated increments of increased temperature precede increments of CO2 increase. The remarkably strong negative correlation (r = −0.99) between the earth’s magnetic dipole moment values and global CO2-temperature indicators over the last ~30 years is sufficient to be considered causal if contributing energies were within the same order of magnitude. Quantitative convergence between the energies lost by the diminishing averaged geo- magnetic field strength and energies gained within the ocean-atmosphere interface satisfy the measured values for increased global temperature and CO2 release from sea water. The pivotal variable is the optimal temporal unit employed to estimate the total energies available for physical-chemical reactions. The positive drift in averaged amplitude of geomagnetic activity over the last 100 years augmented this process. Contributions from annual CO2 from volcanism and shifts in averaged geomagnetic activity, lagged years before the measured global temperature-CO2 values, are moderating variables for smaller amplitude perturbations. These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities. Strategies for adapting to climate change because of these powerful variables may differ from those that assume exclusive anthropomorphic causes.
Climate change has nothing to do with human emissions of CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2).
Tell the truth! Tell the truth!
Your climate policies are pursuing a phantom of the atmosphere - trapped heat!
Tell the truth! Tell the truth!
Perhaps it is old fashioned of me to expect that from politicians. There is a reason why your occupation ranks near the bottom of integrity surveys!
The insane campaign against CO2 and the wild predictions of apocalypse suggest to me that in our time we are living the next chapter of Charles MacKay’s ‘Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’.
They mean climate change at the hands of CO2..
Perhaps this makes the social BENEFITS of CO2 PRICELESS. What do you think?
