I spoke briefly in the Senate about climate science. The data really does speak for itself.
Only 12% of the increase in CO2 between 1750 and 2018 was man-made.
That’s much too low to be the cause of any claimed global warming.
Nature controls carbon dioxide levels, not humans.
Transcript
I want to talk briefly about climate science, because we’ve seen COVID science has been smashed. Earlier today, I promised to talk tonight on why the climate change cult of doom and their rebranding to ‘climate boiling’ is scientific nonsense. Let me do that now using my favourite thing, empirical scientific data, by referencing a peer reviewed paper titled ‘World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, non-fossil component, anthropogenic fossil component, and emissions (1750-2018)’, published in Health Physics journal in February 2022. It’s a long title, but it saves the phone calls from fact-checkers. This paper used caesium-14, or 14C, to analyse carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the period from 1750 to 2018:
After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” … The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. … These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.
The fundamental basis of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been found by analysis of atmospheric gases to be completely wrong.
Nature, as I’ve said many times, controls carbon dioxide levels.
Correction: The speech was written referencing the type of dating as caesium-14. The correct word is carbon-14.
Hello from Québec City, Canada!
Great speech! Taxpayers have had enough of this scam.
May I bring to your attention Senator Doug LaMalfa questioning the U.S. Environment Committee with its questions on climate change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES_h-zlnLiU
These questions ought to be asked to every government promoting “climate change” fear campaigns and special taxes.
Thank you for caring about humanity!
Sincerely.
Danyele Mercier
Hello from Québec City, Canada!
Great speech! Taxpayers have had enough of this scam.
May I bring to your attention Senator Doug LaMalfa questioning the U.S. Environment Committee with its questions on climate change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES_h-zlnLiU
These questions ought to be asked to every government promoting “climate change” fear campaigns and special taxes.
Thank you for caring about humanity!
Sincerely.
Danyele Mercier
As far as the climate hoax ,lve been told that the oceans give of more CO2 than anything else. Also do people now how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I think there was heeps more way back in time when the earth was a lot greener. Anyways look at the climate Zar of America Kerry ,how many Lear jets does he own..lts all a scam
As far as the climate hoax ,lve been told that the oceans give of more CO2 than anything else. Also do people now how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I think there was heeps more way back in time when the earth was a lot greener. Anyways look at the climate Zar of America Kerry ,how many Lear jets does he own..lts all a scam ,l can’t send my comment because it says I’ve already sent one ,I haven’t
As far as the climate hoax ,lve been told that the oceans give of more CO2 than anything else. Also do people now how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I think there was heeps more way back in time when the earth was a lot greener. Anyways look at the climate Zar of America Kerry ,how many Lear jets does he own..lts all a scam ,l can’t send my comment because it says I’ve already sent one ,I haven’t
Steven,
Check changes in ocean pH
Suitably sensitive modern instruments will need to be used, not the old “glass electrodes” from 1910 or thereabouts.
Is the pH rising or falling?
What does this mean?
An understanding of basic chemistry is required.
Cheers,
Col
Steven,
Still waiting (after 12 days) for your answer re ocean pH.
Is it rising or falling?
What does this mean?
Cheers,
Col
Good trick Malcolm.
To quote.
“This paper used caesium-14, or 14C, to analyse carbon dioxide in the atmosphere across the period from 1750 to 2018:”
End of quote
May I enlighten you to the fact Caesium is a metal (in particular it is grouped with the other alkali metals Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, CAESIUM ….
These metals are chemically very reactive.
C14 specifically refers to Carbon 14 that will appear in the atmosphere as CO2 with C14 as the Carbon atom.
Other problems C14 is radioactive with a half life of 5600 years hence its use in Carbon dating.
C14 is formed by the cosmic rays converting atmospheric N14 (good old Nitrogen 78% of the atmosphere) to C14.
The level of C14 in the atmosphere remains constant due to the constant level of cosmic radiation and its decay half life as mentioned above.
The author of the article you refer to has probably mistaken C13 for his C14.
The author’s understanding of basic science is questionable!
C13 is a stable isotope of Carbon (approx 1%) and appears in plant material at a slightly lower ratio due to CO2 with C13 atoms diffusing into plant leaves at a slower rate.(the Kinetic Theory of gases explains this fact).
The reducing ratio of C13 to C12 in the atmosphere is a clear indication clearly showing the rate of human produced CO2.
Malcolm, your acceptance of the article indicates you may have a problem with your own understanding of science.
One further problem, atmospheric CO2 has increased by more than 40% in the time interval given above.
Final comment
WHOOPS !!
Cheers,
Col
I see no indication in your post that you actually read the paper. It doesn’t strike me as smart to criticise something you haven’t read.
John,
All I can find is the abstract.
Do you have full access to the paper?
In any case Malcolm named the element Caesium.
Malcolm’s conclusion is not supported by the abstract.
Quote
“The fundamental basis of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been found by analysis of atmospheric gases to be completely wrong.
Nature, as I’ve said many times, controls carbon dioxide levels. ”
Cheers,
Col
Malcolm as per usual with your comments & attitudes to Anthropogenic Climate Change you are at best cherry picking and at worst failing to carry out a relatively simple Literature Review.
See the following response to the paper you have referenced.
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/07000/Comment_on__World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C.3.aspx
And there are quite a few more of these if you care to do such a Review.
I also smile when I see or hear you use the phrase “empirical scientific data’. Here are some tests that can be applied to ascertain whether research results are in fact “empirical scientific data”.
“Can the experiment be recreated and tested?
Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?
Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?”
Point 1 in the above tests is the largest hole in the majority of papers you cite.
As I noted above you more often than not cherry pick research papers/data to suit your very very strong and somewhat illogical bias which is the antithesis of “empirical scientific data.”
I understand my comments won’t move you to a more logical approach and that you will continue to misrepresent Climate Science data however I wish you no ill.
Stay safe & well.
Paul T.
Thanks Paul.
The website you recommend makes for interesting and compelling reading.
May I say how pleased I am to see another contributor who understands the necessity of accurate understanding of research, data and accurate reporting.
Malcolm, may I recommend you (and others) carefully and thoughtfully read the above mentioned website.
Finally, the correction to you introduction;
“Correction: The speech was written referencing the type of dating as caesium-14. The correct word is carbon-14”
should be acknowledged as being sourced from a contribution dated 11 August 2023 at 8:10 am.
Cheers,
Col
Please see Ed Berry’s web pages (https://edberry.com/), especially the article about his published paper “The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2”, which is followed up in his response to a critic in “Berry vs Andrews on Theory (1)”
Nature controls everything. How egotistical of humans to think they can change that fact. Climate change is another way of controlling us. Some people reading my comment may disagree, feel free to think what you will.
Norma,
Rather than controlling nature as some may think,
HUMANS are in fact interfering with nature.
Much to our distress, eventually.
Unless we successfully reduce this interference
Col
On the contrary Col, our interference has saved nature by adding more plant food to the atmosphere.
There is no such thing as fossil fuel – the oil in the ground is a natural substance and does not come from fossils (another lie) – the powers that be always want us to feel that things are scarce. The oil is so abundant that it can never run out or at least not by our hands. Everything we think we know is a lie, meant to keep us in check and in fear. The world is abundant and we need to take back the power of the people and change the way we live completely – every invention that gives us free energy or is good for our environments, is squashed, bought out and people taken out. They want us to rely on their taxes and their poisons. These criminals who spit out this garbage are the ones that are create the problems, they poison our food, they poison our minds, they inject us with poisons and they spray us from above. Get rid of them, we have a beautiful abundant world.
Dear Ann,
Your comments on oil indicate a serious lack of understanding on the formation of oil.
Basically from the remains of previous living organisms IE Fossils.
It is also a finite resource, we can “run out ” of it.
There are other serious problems in your submission but this is enough for the moment.
Cheers,
Col
Sorry Ann.
Not thinking fast enough.
ASK MALCOLM RE STATUS OF OIL (PETROLEUM) AS A FOSSIL FUEL.
And supply limitations as a finite resource.
Cheers,
Col
The issue is we are asking the wrong question. We have made the assumption that rising CO2 levels is a catastrophe that must be averted, are told CO2 drives temperature and shown computer generated graphs that demonstrated this assertion. These have quietly been withdrawn from the discussion over time. Quite honestly, the models have not predicted reality. We have careened from global cooling, to warming to chaotic change, using screaming, crying children to push the narrative that we must do something, anything, to stop CO2 from rising and “save the planet”. Because the question isn’t based on science or logic, neither is the answer. So far it is proposed that we crush western societies, stop developing nations from using their own resources, massacre animals involved in our food supply chain and pour billions of dollars into solar and wind technology which turns out to be non renewable, bad for the environment and incredibly inefficient. It all points to a massive wealth and power transfers with a new commodity called carbon credit.
The actual question we should be asking is how do we continue to improve the lives of everyone, and by extension everything, on the planet in light of an evolving and changing planet? Our planet was in a mini iceage that ended in 1850 which means the planet has been, and is still, in a cycle of change. CO2 is a gas that is fundamental to the cycle of life and more of it is not a bad thing. The “greenhouse effect” is that after pumping more CO2 into the greenhouse, the plants are more productive. If we use “fossil fuel” and it puts CO2 into the atmosphere, it is returning it to the cycle. We haven’t created something that has never existed and compared to the amount that is generated by nature, we aren’t in control of the total amount.
There are far more important things we need to address.
Dear Pauline,
There is a considerable quantity of scientific information to be understood before one can comment realistically on Global Warming / Climate Change.
1) The following comments are not intended to offend any person but in the interest of accuracy they must be expressed.
2) I hold a university science degree in the physical sciences of Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics and Geology. Mind you a long time ago (1963 to be exact) well before Global Warming was on the public mind so the accusations of “brain washing” can be safely discarded.
3) The level of understanding displayed (from the top down, through the staff and finally to the contributors) on the science of Global Warming is totally inadequate for such a complex issue.
4) On many occasions I have attempted to help these people in their knowledge and understanding by asking a series of guided and directed questions. Leading initially to understanding the Physics of the Greenhouse Effect as a starting point.
5) To date, there has been no response from the top, or other staff members. The only responses have been from “contributors” who do not even attempt to answer the questions but rather resort to abuse, ridicule, denigration and direct (futile) efforts to insult.
6) This leaves the possibility their understanding is insufficient to even attempt an answer. Are they trying to hide their lack of knowledge?
7) The whole episode of refusal to reply, attempted insults etc on such an important issue does not enhance the reputation of one nation as a viable political entity.
Now, as a final point to consider,
Is the understanding of one nation as a team also deficient in other areas of concern such as, Vaccinations, Public health, political realities etc?
Would I vote for one nation?
Certainly not at the present time!
The displayed lack of knowledge on critical issues would deter any thinking person.
Cheers,
Col
By far the biggest contributor to global warming is undersea volcanoes (i.e. seafloor rifting/spreading). Deforestation is also causing the excess carbon dioxide being released by them not to be sequestered again. The burning of fossil fuels contributes, but much less than most people think. Nonetheless fossil fuels should be conserved as they are fossils. Once they are gone they are gone forever (at least on human time scales).
Richard.
Check the comment
Aug 12,2023 at 9:28 am.
Cheers,
Col
Man-made greenhouse gases are not a significant cause of climate change. My two papers on the subject present the evidence: https://www.scribd.com/document/383385011/Global-Warming-Misunderstood, and https://www.scribd.com/document/529064626/The-Impact-of-Greenhouse-Gases-on-Earth-s-Spectral-Radiance.
Thanks Lindsay,
After a quick glance at your two papers There are a few concerns.
1) CO2 levels have increased by approx 46% since the begin of the industrial age. A very significant increase.
2) The graphs of temperature vs CO2 from geological times are irrelevant as they do not refer to the last 250 years of the industrial age.
3) Another graph claims a resolution of 300 years, the industrial age lies within this limit of resolution.
4) Another graph represents the absorption of various greenhouse gases, NOTE this graph shows CO2 has an absorption range almost clear of absorption by water vapour.
5) your concept of 100% absorption needs closer investigation.
These are some concerns from a quick glance.
I hope to have more time for a closer read over the next few days.
Cheers and Thanks,
Col
Hello from little England,
Here’s an article from the UK New Scientist, back when they occasionally or accidentally reported a bit of real science with their mumbo jumbo. Article dated 24/31 December 1981, titled “the Earth shivers, but wait till the Sun warms up”.
The opening question was “Why has the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect so far failed to warm the Earth noticeably?”
Ronald Gilliland of the High Altitude Observatory, Colorado, answered “The Sun has been cooling off in the past two decades counterbalancing the expected warming.”
The rest of the article explained how Gilliland coaxed his models, to fit observations, using such parameters as volcanic activity, co2 and shush don’t mention the truth, solar changes.
We can clearly see the globalist’s methodology at work here – to lie, and obfuscate the truth.
Big problem Rob.
1981 was 42 years ago.
We need more recent information than what you supplied.
Cheers.
Col
Hi Col,
It is refreshing to be supplied with a commenter’s degree qualifications however it does more to show a person’s conditioning and habits of thinking than anything else. Attachment to scientific dogma is the bane of our current human predicament and a major glitch in the human psyche that has repeated itself throughout history to the detriment and/or ultimate demise of questioners of the establishment, questioners who ultimately turned out to be on the money once the scientific establishment could “deny” them no longer.
To be a supporter of the motto “The science is decided” on climate change is a very embaressing position to take although that is an invisible mirror to qualified experts such as yourself.
To label every and any scientist who questions the science as a “denier” is playing that simplistic propaganda name-game that has succeeded in leading humans astray for centuries.
I suspect that the established medical science of attacking symptoms (with poisons) appeals more to a person of qualifications and belief in majority accepted science as yourself? I suspect that treating our soils with scientifically validated fertilizers and pesticides makes sense to you as well. GMO’s? Bring ’em on hey?
What I wonder the most about trolls like you Col is whether you’ll ever admit the error in your thinking when it has been categorically presented or whether you’ll hold on tooth and nail to your beliefs.
I appreciate that Malcolm presents the viewpoints that are not kosher, that attract corporate-funded debunking, that don’t make him a cent of lobbying money, that don’t line up a cushy position with a pharmaceutical company upon retirement from politics.
In my observation, Malcolm stands to gain nothing more than the respect from those of us who cheer the underdog and don’t believe a word the controlled-main-stream media drone on about. “Safe and Effective” … how could anyone believe a word they say ever again?
Keep quoting from the textbooks you want to quote from Col, you’re missing logic and nature all at the same time.