About the Post

Author Information

A great explanation of the 97% consensus and C02 in the atmosphere — In other words, CC for Dummies (that would be me)

Gary W. Smith — Times Herald — January 25, 2014

A Lot Of Climate Fluff

Consider the unnamed ball-parking “9 of 10 climate change supporting scientists” ploy: A 2009 Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois survey, by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman sent to 10,257 American Geophysical Union members is its foundation.

Receiving 3,146 responses, only 77 were climate scientists and 75 of them responding “yes” to a question regarding global warming, they evolved a claim 98 percent of scientists concurred to climate change.

The claim is hardly sustained when the gross number surveyed and scientific expertise is twisted or ignored via statistical manipulation; numbers alone distorted into useless invalidating decimal points. Facts instead of circulated fiction would be more informing.

“State of Fear”, author Michael Crichton’s book, page 387, provides a simple visual of earth’s atmosphere components:”The atmosphere is a football field …. from goal line to 78 yard line is exclusively nitrogen; oxygen fills the next 21 yards. The final yard is argon, except for 2.5 inches which contain minor yet essential gases.

And the last 1.37 inches is CO2 with the amounts added by humans equivalent to a dime turned on its edge.’ CO2 produced by man, per the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center of the U.S. Department of Energy analysis, October 2000, “represents only .03207 percent.”

And we are told to worry about CO2; what a crock!

“Is there climate change – yes” says Dr. Roy S. Geiger. He goes on — do humans contribute to it? Probably yes, but to a negligible degree when properly and scientifically examined.

Should we allocate precious resources to it now given a faltering economic recovery as best bang for the buck? To this I say emphatically – NO! Of all major issues facing cities, states, nations and the world, artificially created, factually biased “climate change projects” must reside as a low spending priority. Our money and focus must and can be directed to more effective uses.

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 1.34.24 PM

Tags: , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: