Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
Well, what a week this has been, people!
Donald Trump, an elected American president, has been brought up on criminal charges by the Democrats in the House of Representatives on a serious charge that carries a penalty of five years in a federal prison because he dared to look into Democrat corruption, but that news is small beans besides the news that little Greta Thunberg, the “climate activist” who Time magazine just made the “TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR,” an honor they bestowed on Adolph Hitler in 1938, was in Madrid, Spain at the UN Conference of Parties (“COP”) on what Greta calls the “climate crisis” caused by what the Democrats in this country call “carbon pollution”, where she was said to have given a very moving and emotional speech that brought the house down and earned her a standing ovation from all the media in attendance who fawn on her every utterance, as well as from all the politicians from the “poor” countries who are hoping her emotional address will serve to shake loose some big bucks flowing from our pockets, because we are “rich,” to theirs, because they are “poor” (“from those who have to those who want”), and because her message was aimed at We, the American People, as an engineer, I thought it necessary to give little Greta some needed help in getting her message to us across, as it is quite serious, so with the courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, I’ll give it a go, after setting forth this portion of little Greta’s speech to the UN global climate crisis crowd on 11 December 2019 aimed at us, to wit:
For about a year I have been constantly talking about our rapidly declining carbon budgets over and over again.
But since that is still being ignored, I will just keep repeating it.
In chapter two, on page 108 in the SR 1.5 IPCC report that came out last year, it says that if we ought to have a 6% to 7% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, we had on January 1, 2018, 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit in that budget.
And of course that number is much lower today as we emit about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year including land use.
With today’s emissions levels, that remaining budget will be gone within about eight years.
These numbers aren’t anyone’s opinions or political views.
This is the current best available science.
Though many scientists suggest these figures or too moderate.
These are the ones that have been accepted through the IPCC, and please note that these figures are global and therefore do not say anything about the aspect of equity, which is absolutely essential to make the Paris Agreement to work on a global scale.
That means that richer countries need to do their fair share and get down to real zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same, so people in less fortunate parts of the world can raise their living standards.
end quotes
And there it is, people, we have been told in no uncertain terms by little Greta what it is we must do to save the world for Greta and her friends to enjoy – we have to get down to ZERO EMISSIONS, pronto, and no excuses accepted, or little Greta and her friends won’t like us on Facebook, which is some serious **** indeed.
So, if we don’t want little Greta feeling bad about herself because we greedy Americans have stolen her childhood from her because of our profligate lifestyles over here that are going to cause the world to end in 2030, we need to do our part in this drama by going to ZERO EMISSIONS of carbon dioxide, which means first of all, NO MORE RESPIRATION by humans in America because every time we exhale, and don’t try to kid us that you don’t, because it is a scientific fact that we all do, we emit the toxic and noxious carbon dioxide that is destroying the world and killing people in other countries which is quite upsetting to little Greta, so we have to stop exhaling now.
If we all stop breathing in this country, which would be our fair share to this effort, that alone will remove gigatons of carbon pollution from the atmosphere, and since that is simple and easy, that is where we should start.
And then, no combustion of any sort, period!
No stick matches, no BIC lighters at Garth Brooks concerts, no campfires, no bar-b-cues, because all of those things emit carbon dioxide, so that to get to zero emissions as is our duty to the rest of the world, NO MORE FIRES of any kind, people, which would include oil-burning furnaces and propane or natural gas.
There are more gigatons of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, which should make little Greta euphorically happy.
And after that, I don’t think we need to worry about much else, because what little Greta really is asking for from us is that we as a nation and as a people commit suicide by going to ZERO EMISSIONS to save the world for little Greta and her friends, because with zero emissions of carbon dioxide, life on earth is not possible!
As for me, I’m thinking that I’m taking a pass, myself, on committing suicide to make Greta Thunberg in Sweden feel good about herself and all warm and squishy inside while I sit here in the winter cold freezing and starving.
As for anyone wishing to ride the Greta Train to Eternal Paradise, where life is beautiful all the time, step in line, grab yourself a cup of Kool-Aid, and don’t mind the bitter taste, it’s a new flavor is all, and after a moment, everything for little Greta will be just fine!
Paul Plante says
The face of little Greta Thunberg that graces the cover of Time magazine as its “Person of the Year” for this year should truly be captioned as “THE FACE OF A GREAT FRAUD!” for that is exactly what we are being fed here by little Greta – horse**** packaged up as “climate science” when it is anything but.
As to Greta being Time Person of the Year, according to Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal, “Thunberg has become the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet — and the avatar of a broader generational shift in our culture that is playing out everywhere from the campuses of Hong Kong to the halls of Congress in Washington.”
“We describe it as the person who influenced the years’ events most, for better or for worse.”
end quotes
Little Greta influenced the year’s events the most by making a literal mockery out of the word “science,” which Greta has converted over to meaning a brown paper bag full of horse****, because Greta has “anti-science,” which is to say, her “science” is a negation, not a confirmation of real established science that Greta remains totally ignorant of, having deluded herself into believing the world is going to end by 2030 unless we all stop using “carbon” immediately, as we heard little Greta tell the “world leaders” at the just-concluded Conference of Parties (“COP”) in Madrid, to wit: !
“Our greenhouse gas emissions has to stop.”
“To stay below 1.5 degrees.”
“We need to keep the carbon in the ground.”
end quotes
Which is inane hogwash, since roughly 96 percent of the mass of the human body is made up of just four elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.
In fact, carbon is the basis of life on earth, so if we keep it all in the ground as Time Person of the Year Greta Thunberg, “THE FACE OF A GREAT FRAUD,” is demanding, life for us humans will become untenable, and finally, little Greta will have the world all to herself to do with as she pleases.
Getting back to how Greta became the Time magazine Person of the Year, Time editor Felsenthal told CNN Business in an interview this week, as follows:
“But I really think of it as Time is about the people and ideas that shape the world and Person of the Year is about the people who shaped the year.”
end quotes
Which is quite shallow when you think about it, given that the ideas Greta is using to shape the world are bull**** ideas.
“She was a solo protestor with a hand-painted sign 14 months ago.”
“She’s now led millions of people around the world, 150 countries, to act on behalf of the planet,” Felsenthal said.
end quotes
And actually, she has led millions of people around the world in 150 countries into a dangerous Jonestown-type of delusion, which brings us to this bit of history concerning another charismatic “leader” like little Greta to wit:
Jim Jones was a charismatic churchman who established the Peoples Temple, a Christian sect, in Indianapolis in the 1950s.
In the 1970s, his church was accused by the media of financial fraud, physical abuse of its members and mistreatment of children.
In response to the mounting criticism, the increasingly paranoid Jones invited his congregation to move with him to Guyana, where he promised they would build a socialist utopia.
Jonestown did not turn out to be the paradise their leader had promised.
Temple members worked long days in the fields and were subjected to harsh punishments if they questioned Jones’ authority.
Their passports were confiscated, their letters home censored and members were encouraged to inform on one another and forced to attend lengthy, late-night meetings.
Jones, by then in declining mental health and addicted to drugs, was convinced the U.S. government and others were out to destroy him.
He required Temple members to participate in mock suicide drills in the middle of the night.
Ultimately, commanded everyone to gather in the main pavilion and commit what he termed a “revolutionary act.”
The youngest members of the Peoples Temple were the first to die, as parents and nurses used syringes to drop a potent mix of cyanide, sedatives and powdered fruit juice into children’s throats.
Adults then lined up to drink the poison-laced concoction while armed guards surrounded the pavilion.
When Guyanese officials arrived at the Jonestown compound the next day, they found it carpeted with hundreds of bodies.
end quotes
Yes, that is what I think about when I hear little Greta Thunberg warping and twisting the minds of millions of otherwise ignorant and unsuspecting children in the world – a charismatic fool leading people to their deaths as they again try to establish another UTOPIA on earth where the climate never changes and is just the way you want it, not too hot, not too cold, but always just right, the way it is in NEVER-NEVER LAND where Greta and Peter Pan live in complete harmony with a world where there is no carbon whatsoever above the ground.
For those who want to join her, the next train leaves the station in five minutes, so be sure to have your ticket in hand at the boarding gate.
Paul Plante says
To provide some much-needed background for context here, given that this little Greta girl is a very recent media creation here in the United States of America, leaping into media celebrity status almost overnight much as the Beatles did when they took America by storm back when they came to America to be on the Ed Sullivan “Really Big Show” and had young girls openly weeping for whatever reason young girls weep when in the presence of celebrities like the Beatles, my first “awakening,” if you will, to the MEDIA PHENOMENON little Greta Thunberg has been created into by the slick marketing of the Greta brand by her multi-millionaire movie producer father and press agent Svante Thunberg, was when I came across an AFP article entitled “CO2 row over climate activist Thunberg’s yacht trip to New York” on 18 August 2019, where the people of the United States of America were treated to the following:
The team behind teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg’s yacht voyage to New York on Sunday fended off claims that her trip will create carbon emissions because team members will take transatlantic flights.
end quotes
Now, take notice of that phrase: “The team behind teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg’s yacht voyage to New York ….”
That team behind the Greta brand, as is clear from her yacht voyage to America on a high-tech carbon fiber racing yacht that was likely responsible for 20 tons of CO2 emitted when the carbon fiber to make the boat was made, represents BIG BUCK$ and to them, the slickly-marketed Greta brand is a good investment that is sure to pay dividends to them down the road, because this Greta Show is just getting going, with a movie on the way since the Book of Greta is already out in print.
We Americans are given hints of the “corporate” nature of the Greta brand in the Daily Mail article “Who’s REALLY behind 16-year-old Greta Thunberg? Ugly feud between her opera singer-turned-climate-activist mother and the green PR man who she accuses of exploiting her” by Jessica Green published 22 April 2019, to wit:
She’s the 16-year-old schoolgirl who inspired a series of classroom walkouts when her message for faster action on climate change spread from Sweden across the continent.
But while Greta Thunberg spoke to an animated crowd of Existence Rebellion demonstrators at Marble Arch, London, yesterday, reports emerged claiming the teenager’s rise to fame was more orchestrated than first thought.
end quotes
And my goodness, people, “orchestrated?”
Seriously, who’d a thought it?
Staying with that story for the moment, because it is important for the future of our children and their mental and emotional well-being that we rational adults in this country understand exactly who this little girl actually is as well as the threat she poses to the youth of America who are unable to resist her siren song, we have:
Six months ago an unknown 15-year-old Miss Thunberg camped outside Sweden’s parliament next to a hand-written sign that read ‘Skolstrejk för Klimatet’ (School strike for the climate).
end quotes
See, people, it’s just like the Beatles or Elvis Presley – singing and playing in some back-street dive one day and then hey, there you are in the lights on Broadway the very next!
God bless America, ain’t it?
Staying with the Daily Mail:
Miss Thunberg skipped school every Friday to sit on the steps of the Riksdag and soon became a global success following her first TED talk – which now has more than a million views.
But doubts have been raised as to whether the teenager’s newfound shift into the spotlight is really the creation of a carefully laid out public relations campaign.
end quotes
OMG, people, say it ain’t so!
Greta the creation of a carefully laid out public relations campaign?
HUH?
You mean she is a little fake?
Going back to the Daily Mail to see what more there might be to learn to enlighten our American children and grandchildren with before they too are sucked into the CULT OF GRETA WORSHIPPERS that is forming all over the world as we speak, we have:
PR consultant Ingmar Rentzhog’s We Don’t Have Time climate change PR agency used Miss Thunberg’s image to gain funds for his firm, according to Climate Change Dispatch.
Mr Rentzhog told Vice: ‘They think that I am the PR genius behind Greta.’
‘That I write her speeches and arrange meetings for her with journalists.’
‘That’s simply not true.’
end quotes
The PR genius behind Greta is Svante Thunberg, himself a famous child actor in Sweden who has raised little Greta in his image, and it was he who was writing her speeches and arranging meetings for her with journalists, and a very slick job of it our Svante did, which takes us back to the Daily Mail as follows:
It was also revealed earlier this year that Miss Thunberg’s school strike coincided with the launch of a book about climate change written by her mother, well known opera singer Malena Ernman, according to Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche.
end quotes
In the book, which I guess is a New York Times bestseller, Ernman talks about being married to Swedish actor Svante Thunberg and how their daughter Greta rose to worldwide prominence when she initiated the school strike for climate, and she goes into minute detail about how in August 2014, which is a key benchmark date here, her then 11-year-old daughter Greta suddenly stopped eating, talking, reading or wanting to do anything, which condition lasted for several months and how the child Greta, the star of this story, finally got, among others, a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, and how this acute period of her daughter’s illness affected Ernman and her family to such an extent that she had a breakdown three times during her professional activity and that altogether five performances had to be cancelled, and then, after the “Greta crisis” had been overcome, she turned to the nationwide daily newspaper Expressen, which then reported about her three breakdowns in detail, which was something the Swedes were apparently greatly interested in, and how, since then, Ernman has been politically active in support of the Paris Agreement against climate change, writing a collaborative debate piece in Dagens Nyheter, and how with her husband, she co-wrote the book Scener ur hjärtat (Scenes from the Heart) about her family, the environmental crisis and sustainability.
Going back to the Daily Mail and the commercial aspects of the Greta brand of Kool-Aid, we have:
Yet Miss Thunberg denied that the book launch had anything to do with her personal school strike.
Writing on Facebook, she said: ‘My family has written a book together about our family and how me and my sister Beata have influenced my parents way of thinking and seeing the world, especially when it comes to the climate.’
‘And about our diagnoses.’
end quotes
Yes, people, Greta has been diagnosed as having a SUPER POWER that makes her far more intelligent than anyone here in the United States of America, anyway, so when she dictates to us that we have to go to zero emissions of CO2 and keep our carbon in the ground, that is the voice of a real expert speaking, regardless of the fact that what she is really spewing is mindless gibberish, as we see by going back to the AFP article, to wit:
Thunberg has become a figurehead for climate action with her stark warnings of catastrophe if the world does not act now to cut carbon emissions and curb global warming.
She has received criticism and abuse for her uncompromising attitude, but shows little concern at how she might be received among climate change deniers in the United States.
“I will just ignore them because I’m only acting and communicating the science, and if they don’t like that, what have I got to do with that?” she said.
end quotes
Well, Greta, I’m an American, I’m an adult, I’m a grandfather, I’m an engineer, and a qualified public health engineer, and I do know the “science,” and what you are “communicating” as “science” is nothing but ignorant horse****.
And if you don’t like being told that, Greta, it’s too damn bad because in America, unlike Sweden, we don’t like our children and grandchildren having their heads filled with your ignorant horse**** in the guise of climate science.
Paul Plante says
As a grandfather here in the United States of America, as opposed to socialist Sweden, which is a constitutional monarchy, as opposed to our Republic, where their customs and beliefs are obviously quite a bit different than here in the United States of America, something little Greta is obviously clueless about, because she has freely chosen the path of gross ignorance instead, with the support of her parents, I might add (why modern parents want their children to be ignorant and stupid eludes me), my advice to little Greta would have to do with what her message really is, and how she could get that across much better to people here in the United States of America who don’t like being battered with HYPE, HYSTERIA and PARANOID FEARS of a confused little girl who wants everybody to believe that her irrational fears come from a SUPER POWER only she possesses.
As we are told in the “authority,” that being CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb, who is far more of an expert than is the ignorant little Greta, in the section “FORECASTS OF THE NATURAL CLIMATE” off:
In 1974 a specially appointed panel of the National Science Foundation in the United States produced the analysis of the position summarized here in table 11.
The net outcome is a suggestion that the natural climate is at present cooling at an average rate of about 0.15°C per decade.
On this analysis, the net cooling rate would be expected to decline to zero by about the year 2015 and be followed by two or three decades of slight warming, the peak rate being about 0.08°C per decade around AD 2030, and thereafter little change before a further decline a century later.
end quotes
Yes, people, we are in what is known as an “interglacial” period here on this earth of ours, a time between glaciers where life for humans is a lot easier than it is when the glaciers come back, and since that is the “science,” as opposed to what Greta carries around with her, that is what we humans here in the United States of America have to deal with, as we see from the following:
Another suggestion — put forward by Professor A.T. Wilson of the University of Waikato, New Zealand — is that towards the end of each warm interglacial period the remainder of the great inland ice on Antarctica tends to become unstable.
And it is thought that, aided by melting at the base, virtually the whole ice dome covering West Antarctica — the Pacific Ocean sector of the continent — where the bed-rock is far below sea level is liable to surge out into the surrounding sea (and perhaps parts of the bigger East Antarctic dome as well).
This should so broaden the floating pack-ice belt as to cool the entire southern hemisphere climate and ultimately cool the oceans all over the world.
Hence, the magnitude and the timing of the more abrupt steps in the climatic progression are subject to influences, such as the incidence of volcanic dust in the atmosphere, and perhaps Antarctic ice surges, which may have to be treated as random.
This means that details of timing of the progression towards another ice age can probably only be stated in some sort of statistical terms based on comparisons with the declining stages of previous interglacials.
The most thorough refinement of the calculation of the Earth’s orbital variations, extending back (for each month of the year at thousand-year intervals) over the last million years and forward sixty thousand years into the future, has been carried out by Professor A. Berger of the Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Berger has also been able to demonstrate a convincing (statistically significant) association between these variations and past climatic effects on the scale of ice ages and interglacial periods.
This was done by studying with Dr G. Kukla of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, New York, the significance of the climatic response to the radiation changes in different months of the year and at various latitudes.
Two different models were used for examining the association between the radiation balance variations and the climatic response.
One model examined the incidence of warm and cold climate periods separately; the other amounted to a single integrated expression of the regime, including a persistence effect from the condition of the climate three thousand years before.
The results from the two models agreed so well, and they explained such a high proportion (in one case 87 per cent) of the past climatic variation (as known from the oxygen isotope variations in cores from the bed of the deep oceans), that in Berger’s words they ‘authorize the prediction of the future natural climate’.
The result is seen in the righthand portion of fig. 118.
The key points are that:
1 Unless counter-effects due to man’s impact on the climate supervene, the descent of prevailing temperatures towards the next ice age is due to steepen in the next millennia.
2 The first (modest) climax of colder, more or less glacial climate appears to be only around three thousand to seven thousand years from now.
3 Despite some recovery peaking about fifteen thousand years hence, return to climates as warm as today’s is not expected until after a full glacial climax about sixty thousand years hence.
According to one of the models used, 114, 000 years of glacial climates lie ahead.
This outline of the development of climate over all these thousands of years ahead may be regarded as the most guaranteeable part of our capacity to foresee the future, because its basis is of similar nature to the succession of night and day and the yearly round of the seasons.
end quotes
That irrefutable scientific reality should give little Greta and all her little and not so little friends who are screaming about “climate change” something to get real freaked out about, alright!
And for the sake of the sanity your children and grandchildren here in the United States of America, please stay tuned, because there is more science yet to come.
Paul Plante says
And to respond to a serious question my own grandchildren who follow this serious discussion have posed to me, which is, “is it wrong for Greta Thunberg, and by extension, the youth of the world, to be concerned about carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere,” my answer as an honest grandfather who is a public health engineer is that from a public health standpoint, we all really should be concerned about everything in the air we breathe, and as beneficial as carbon dioxide is to life on earth, like everything, too much of a good thing is harmful, as we see from these values provided to us by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for safe carbon dioxide levels in the air we breathe, to wit:
* 350 – 1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
* 1,000 – 2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
* 2,000 – 5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.
end quotes
So, there obviously are limits to the amount of carbon dioxide we would want to have in the air we breathe.
So, the answer is that it is not wrong to be concerned about the carbon dioxide going into our earth’s atmosphere.
If there is anything wrong, and this of course is a moral judgment I am making as an adult and as a grandfather, it is being obsessed with carbon dioxide to the point of being made ill, physically, mentally and emotionally, by fears that the imminent end of the earth due to carbon pollution is at hand.
That is hysteria, not science.
As to the science related to carbon dioxide and its possible effects on climate, which are theoretical, the authority, that being CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb, in the section POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY AND POLICY DECISIONS, states thusly:
To put the prospect in perspective against the net outcome when natural climatic variations are also included, what is known in outline of the history of world temperature from the seventeenth century to date is indicated by the most widely accepted variations of five-year mean temperature level in central England and over the northern hemisphere (the latter available only since 1870).
This makes it obvious that the CO2 climate theory is not doing very well as the sole explanation of the changes and that other causes of climatic variation are also important.
end quotes
In other words, while a theory, which is an idea, that is all the CO2 climate theory really is – an idea.
As Lamb says, when tested against reality, the theory, the idea, does not hold up very well.
Thus, while it is a matter of concern from a public health standpoint, it is not something to get hysterical about, nor is it something we rational adults should be feeling panic about so that like these scared children, we can’t think straight, either.
Paul Plante says
And as an example of what I would hope is a universal difference between children in America, perhaps a far-fetched hope in some cases where children in America are conditioned to obey, as opposed to question, and children in socialist Sweden, my grandchildren, who have had instilled in them from when young the skill of being able to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to poor little Greta Thunberg, who has had her young head foiled with garbage to the point that her mind is now poisoned, so she lives in constant fear of a theory, have pondered these values of safe CO2 levels provided above by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for safe carbon dioxide levels in the air we breathe, and being able to think, they immediately latched on to the statement that “350 – 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide is the typical level of carbon dioxide found in occupied spaces with good air exchange,” and first asked me what the phrase “good air exchange” meant from an engineering point-of-view, and they followed that question up with the more important one of why, if 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide is a safe level in the air we breathe inside a room with good air exchange with outside air, then wouldn’t that imply that we have gone way past 400 ppm in the atmosphere to account for the extra 600 ppm found in the room air?
Now, to me, that is critical thinkin g by children in action – hey, wait a minute, something doesn’t add up here, so why this?
And that answer from an engineering point-of-view is that theories about reality are not reality – they are merely theories, and when real-world numbers like the 1,000 ppm of carbon dioxide in safe room air seem to contradict a theory, then it is the theory that is wrong, or incomplete, or flawed.
It is as simple as that, and people, seriously, none of this requires a Ph.D. to understand – given that it is all basic high school or grade school stuff.
But let’s first go back to understanding the concept of “good air exchange” with respect to safe CO2 levels, the health effects of which can include headaches, sleepiness, poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate, and slight nausea by going to an Occupational Health and Safety article on the subject by Steve Bonino on Apr 01, 2016, where we learn as follows in non-sensational, non-hysterical language as follows:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a byproduct of combustion, as well as a result of the metabolic process in living organisms.
Because carbon dioxide is a result of human metabolism, concentrations within a building often are used to indicate whether adequate fresh air is being supplied to the space.
Moderate to high levels of carbon dioxide can cause headaches and fatigue, and higher concentrations can produce nausea, dizziness, and vomiting.
Loss of consciousness can occur at extremely high concentrations.
end quotes
Which brings us to another valid point my grandchildren who can think made – if increasing amounts of carbon dioxide make us increasingly sick, wouldn’t that serve as a natural form of brake on humans putting more carbon dioxide into the air, if everyone is nauseous and dizzy and vomiting and losing consciousness, and my response as an honest grandfather is that with people, anything is possible and you just never know.
It is people, afterall, who build housing developments on earthquake fault lines, or low, flood-prone areas, or on the sides of unstable hills, so in my mind, after being around people and their follies for many decades now, it is entirely feasible in my mind that yes, they will continue to pump out carbon dioxide in copious volume until they all pass out and die, which is how persistent I think people are in their folly, so the lesson to my grandchildren is that it is up to them to try and find a different way that is not as stupid as the one we have now where huge ships ply the world’s oceans to bring cheap plastic crap from China to America, where it soon ends up in a landfill, or by the side of the road in a ditch, or in the world’s oceans as trash.
As to the GREAT STUPID I tell my grandchildren their generation will have to find a way to deal with, it can be summarized very concisely in this excerpt from CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb, in the section THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, DIVERSIFICATION AND MARGINS OF SAFETY IN AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY POLICY, to wit:
In the most productive countries it now takes two calories of fuel on the farms to produce one calorie of food, and when transport and storage costs are added the ratio may rise to ten or twelve calories of fuel for one of food.
end quotes
Leaving that thought to be pondered, lets go back to the OHS article as follows:
To prevent or reduce high concentrations of carbon dioxide in a building or room, fresh air should be supplied to the area.
end quotes
So, yes, the air leaving a building is rich in carbon dioxide compared to the outside air, which is strongly implying that we humans are a major source of the carbon dioxide said to be able to end life as we know it on earth by 2020.
So no wonder little Greta Thunberg is so confused and filled with fear, because it is indeed confusing, especially now that thanks to the IPCC and by extension, little Greta, who has heard that the sky could fall in theory and is now running all around the world crying that it really is falling, the term “science” has been reduced to a term of mockery, with all of these wild, sensationalist claims in the media of the impending or incipient end of the world, which takes us back to Lamb in the section APPROACHES TO CLIMATE FORECASTING AND THEIR USEFULNESS, because when it comes to being confused by a raft of conflicting bull**** put out in the name of “science,” little Greta is not alone, to wit:
Another point which should already affect decisions today comes from studies of the aftermath of the world-wide stresses of the early-mid-1970s by Michael Glantz.
Officials of the governments and others concerned in the countries in the Sahel were asked what they would have done if a reliable climate forecast had been available before the worst phase of the Sahel drought around 1972–3.
A common answer was that the cattle-carrying capacity of the rangelands should have been assessed and cattle-herders required to keep down the size of their herds to prevent overgrazing.
A policy of culling the herds to improve them by keeping only the best beasts could have been enjoined upon the owners at the same time.
There has also been already a more general pay-off from the increased activity in climate research over the last ten to twenty years in an awareness — however little acted upon so far — that climate is not as constant as it appeared to be in the most benign decades of the present century.
Even the most extreme and divergent forecasts of future climate, put forward in this period prematurely by scientists who were expert in only this or that part of the enormously wide fields of relevant knowledge, may have done some good by undermining complacency and alerting the world community to what can happen.
Nevertheless, this is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue.
The daunted decision-makers, who must have been confused and disillusioned about the value of ‘experts’, should perhaps see it as a stage that had to be gone through after the long neglect of investigation of the history and development of climate.
end quotes
And all these years later, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, I am writing in here, because those supposed scientists who are expert in only this or that part of the enormously wide fields of relevant knowledge have made it more confusing, not less, so that the situation which should not have been allowed to continue, has instead persisted right up to our times today, with little Greta a vivid example of how the poisoning effect of that confusion and hysteria being propagated by the reckless and out-of-control media can literally drive a poor child ,out of her mind with fear and worry to the point of where she wants people in America to panic so we can experience the fear she feels everyday – about a theory, which again takes us back to Lamb, to wit:
Modelling in a realm as complex, and with as many interactive variables, as the climatic system is primarily an aid to thought and to conceiving the patterns of the real world rather than an automatic provider of accurate or reliable answers.
end quotes
That is what I tell my grandchildren – models of reality are not reality, and theories about reality which lead to models about reality mare not reality, no matter how many people calling themselves “scientists” might argue otherwise, which takes us back to Lamb this one time, to wit:
Two quite different types of forecast, whether for a season ahead or of the climate in the longer term, can also be attempted.
One is specific, stating that the prevailing weather will be warmer, or colder, or perhaps even specifying a temperature range (and correspondingly for rainfall).
The forecasts of carbon dioxide warming, and of the next ice age some thousands of years ahead, are in this category.
(This seems also to be the style preferred for all occasions by amateurs and quacks.)
end quotes
Just saying, Greta.
Paul Plante says
So, what exactly is the “Greenhouse Gas Theory” that is causing all this media hysteria today, and where did the theory come from is the next question my grandchildren have posed to me, and the answer is that the Greenhouse Gas Theory was derived as an answer to the conundrum that according to “science,” the earth should be too cold to support life as we know it based on its distance from the sun, which raised the question several hundred years ago now as to why the earth does support life, when science says it should be otherwise.
In the Preface to his seminal work WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden translated by Dr. H. Borns and published March, 1908, Arrhenius started the discussion on that serious subject as follows with this necessary background to understanding the scienc, to wit:
WHEN, more than six years ago, I was writing my Treatise of Cosmic Physics, I found myself confronted with great difficulties.
The views then held would not explain many phenomena, and they failed in particular in cosmogonic problems.
end quotes
One of those phenomena, of course, was the question of why the earth should support life as we think we know it, which as we will see, takes us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which is only a theory, where “theory” is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Getting back to Arrhenius:
The explanations which I tentatively offered could, of course, not claim to stand in all their detail; yet the scientific world received them with unusual interest and benevolence.
Thus encouraged, I tried to solve more of the numerous important problems, and in the present volume I have added some further sections to the complex of explanatory arguments concerning the evolution of the Universe.
The foundation to these explanations was laid in a memoir which I presented to the Academy of Sciences at Stockholm in 1900.
The memoir was soon afterwards printed in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, and the subject was further developed in my Treatise of Cosmic Physics.
end quotes
Now, reading that, we need to remember that science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, the aim of which is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works.
Science therefore is not absolutist dogma, where dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
With respect to the real effects of carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere, for example, the science can be seen in the NASA publication “A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide – September 6, 2014 to September 6, 2015,” to wit:
Carbon naturally cycles through earthly environments.
Ocean water naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and floating, microscopic phytoplankton soak it up as well.
Trees, crops, and other plants on land take up carbon dioxide and turn it into the building blocks of roots, stems, branches, and leaves.
Some of that carbon stays in the soil as vegetation dies and gets buried, and some is released back into the atmosphere through plant respiration.
Today, about half of the carbon dioxide released by human activities stays in the atmosphere, warming and altering Earth’s climate.
The other half is removed from the air by the plants, plankton, and oceans.
“The huge question is: in the future, as the carbon dioxide builds up, will the land and the ocean continue to take up that 50 percent?” said Eldering.
“Do they get saturated or full, and they quit at some point, or do they always just take up more and more and more?”
end quotes
In other words, if we adults are to be really truthful with America’s children, when asked about the impacts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the scientific answer is we just do not know.
We can surmise, of course, which is what is causing all of this “climate change due to carbon dioxide” hysteria being spread by little Greta Thunberg of Sweden, but surmisals are not science, which takes us back to Arrhenius, to wit:
The theory of the “degradation” of energy appeared to introduce a still greater difficulty.
That theory seems to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Universe is tending towards the state which Clausius has designated as “Wdrme Tod” (heat death), when all the energy of the Universe will uniformly be distributed through space in the shape of movements of the smallest particles.
That would imply an absolutely inconceivable end of the development of the Universe.
The way out of this difficulty which I propose comes to this: the energy is “degraded” in bodies which are in the solar state, and the energy is “elevated,” raised to a higher level, in bodies which are in the nebular state.
end quotes
Clausius is Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius (2 January 1822 – 24 August 1888) who was a German physicist and mathematician and is considered one of the central founders of the science of thermodynamics.
His most important paper, “On the Moving Force of Heat”, published in 1850, first stated the basic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.
In 1865 he introduced the concept of entropy.
end quotes
So that gives us today a look at how long people of science have been looking at these issues, especially the question of is the earth cooling because the energy of the sun is diminishing, which takes us to the section “THE CELESTIAL BODIES, IN PARTICULAR THE EARTH, AS ABODES OF ORGANISMS,” where Arrhenius provides the following thoughts about this earth of ours, which the absolutist dogmatic “Carbon Dioxide Climate Crisis” crowd is going to come to an end around 2030, as follows:
THERE is no more elevating spectacle than to contemplate the sky with its thousands of stars on a clear night.
When we send our thoughts to those lights glittering in infinite distance, the question forces itself upon us, whether there are not out there planets like our own that will sustain organic life.
How little interest do we take in a barren island of the Arctic Circle, on which not a single plant will grow, compared to an island in the tropics which is teeming with life in its most wonderful variety!
The unknown worlds occupy our minds much more when we may fancy them inhabited than when we have to regard them as dead masses floating about in space.
We have to ask ourselves similar questions with regard to our own little planet, the earth.
Was it always covered with verdure, or was it once sterile and barren?
And if that be so, what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life?
end quotes
And here I will pause, because it that question “what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life,” which will in turn lead us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory that is the cause of so much hype and hysteria today about the world coming to an end because of the heat alleged to be generated by carbon dioxide.