Comments on: NASA chief climate scientist’s letter to Rudd: Stop building coal-fired plants

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

So to summarise the McGuire contribution to biology, a) CO2 is essential for life and therefore the more of it the better. b) Living systems produce CO2 and therefore it is natural and hence harmless, blameless and probably good for us.

However, all the essential chemical constituents of life are potentially toxic. Indeed we exhaleCO2 not because of its robust, life-giving qualities but because it is poisonous to us. Try holding your breathe. That "I'm about to explode" feeling, not dissimilar from the effect of reading arrant nonsense about climate change 20 years after it was too late to save industrial civilisation, is due to CO2 buildup in your blood.

What is at issue here is the physical effect of CO2 on the climate, not its involvement in organic chemistry. Not even the groundbreaking physical theories of McGuide et al could claim that heat is essential for life and therefore the more the better, or that all living things produce heat and therefore it is natural, harmless and good for us.

THe "CO2, its a natural part of life" brand message is as credible as "Cyanide! Everyone needs their greens!" or "Toxic sludge! natures best combination of essential heavy metals". All true, all irrelevant.

By: Julius

Julius — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

James Hansen may, superficially have better qualifications to speak of immensely complex systems than that vocal expert in ancient animals, Tim Flannery, but my particle physicist friends who deal in serious modeling regard him as more a political activist than scientist. Amongst many serious points raised by the doubters how can it be that the tipping point towards disaster hasn’t already arrived when the CO2 in the atmosphere, at 400 ppm +, is already at virtual saturation point beyond which no more infra red radiation could be absorbed by the atmospheric CO2? And what about the >50 per cent of our coal which is burned in other countries? What sensible point does he have to make about that? Put it on the blacklist with uranium exports to India? Tax the exports?

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Andrew, if you are going to name and criticise a contribution here at least give Richard McGuire the decency of actually reading his contribution first.

“CO2, its a natural part of life” is not a brand message. It is a fact.

You are correct in one regard. Its relevance to a debate on AGW is almost none at all.

But do not call it a poison or equate it with cyanide in a debate on AGW as many ‘warmists’ do. That is rank stupidity.

By: Jeff Ash

Jeff Ash — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This reminds me of an old Late Show gag - Tony Martin was commenting on Billy Idol doing anti drug ads - This is Billy Idol saying stop doing drugs and stop drinking alcohol - After you Mr Idol…
Where do Americans get off?

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Your quote was of a response by me to your comment using your very own phrase to contradict your logic.” If that was your intention Mr K

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Actually John Hunwick, the economic argument of the higher cost of doing nothing, oft repeated by Rudd and his ministers, is apparently untrue as demonstrated by Garnaut himself in his latest report:

“The optimal level of Australian mitigation effort - the level that maximised the incomes and wealth of Australians - is easily calculated. It would be zero” p21.

Terry McCrann recently reviewed the economic arguments:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24326897-36281,00.html

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“No CO2 = No photosynthesis = No life. You obviously didn’t read or understand my previous comments Mr K. Natural processes are well capable of producing enough CO2 without our involvement. “Greater concentrations of atmospheric CO2 = More photosynthesis = Greater food production.” Only Mr K if there are no droughts resulting from higher CO2 concentrations. Two tips Mr K. When you’re in a hole stop digging. And stop furnishing me with quotes I can use against you later.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Correct Ivan Wainwright in the past, warming has preceeded increased CO2. Such warming was often initiated by variations to the earth’s orbit around the Sun. But after the initial warming increasing CO2 levels accelerated that warming. CO2 began to rise long before the 1950’s. Prior to the Industrial Revolution CO2 levels were 280 ppm. Now they’re at 387 ppm. It is worth remembering that CO2 levels during the last ice age were only 160 -180 ppm. CO2 does matter. I would suggest you check out science blogs like Skeptical Science and Brave New Climate.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bring on the ignoramuses. First to James K. That would be THE James K who on September 1st had this to say in Crikey, Your Say ,Comments ” if we stop pumping out CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in perpetuity know that at that point we shall all be dead….CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and life as we know it.” Do you still believe we must keep pumping out CO2 in perpetuity Mr K? That is after all what Hansen was about in his letter. The so called Hockey Stick first appeared in the IPPC’s 3rd report. It again appeared in the IPCC’s 4th report. So it survived the attacks by McIntyre, McKitrick et al. Any one can look up the Medieval Warm Period in Wikipedia. There they will find ten climate reconstructions including Mann’s so called Hockey Stick. They all go back to the Medieval Warm Period and some beyond. All of them show recent decades to be warmer than the Medieval Warm Period . So why does not McIntyre McKitrick et al pick on the scientists who put together the other nine reconstructions? I can’t go without again puting this question to all you naysayers out there. What level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are you happy to inflict on future generations?

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Continued from the above comments…………… If that was your intention Mr K it came badly unstuck didn’t it ? For the record here is my part of the exchange….. “What level of atmospheric CO2 would you be happy to see your kids, grandkids, nephews and nieces, whatever, live with ? Or do you believe we can keep pumping out CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in perpetuity ?”………………. Your response Mr K in full…………”Furthermore Richard McGuire if we stop ‘pumping out CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in perpetuity’ know that at that point we shall all be dead …….CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and life as we know it on this sacred planet. !” ………Nothing dishonest there Mr K. People can judge for themselves, or check the record for themselves, at Crikey - Your Say - Comments September 1st.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thank you to Julius for his nomination of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here is someone who believes we can keep pumping out CO2 perpetuity. According to Julius after 400 ppm + it no longer matters. I’m just not sure whether Julius was referring to CO2 or CO2 equivalent. CO2 is currently at 387 ppm, CO2 e is currently at 455ppm. So you can all turn off your computers and relax.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It won’t wash Mr K . Again I will remind you and other readers what you said. “if we stop pumping out CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in perpetuity know that at that point we shall be dead….CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and life.”

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Tsk tsk Richard McGuire! Dishonest as well as a clown I see.

Your quote was of a response by me to your comment using your very own phrase to contradict your 'logic' or more corrrectly to demonstrate the lack thereof and hence the oxymoron within it.

Animals and plants respire and produce CO2 quite naturally. Plants 'fix" Co2 by a process of photosynthesis. You made it quite clear that did not understand the nature of photosynthesis and respiration but you have obviously read a basic biology text in the last few hours....well done but please spare us your ill-informed diatribes in future.

CO2 and methane are natural gases produced of Life itself.

No doubt you have surmised that I reject AGW as a theory but I do not. I just cannot abide the bullshit peddled as 'fact' by ill informed buffoons like yourself.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thank you Mr K.

By: Richard McGuire

Richard McGuire — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

OK Mr K if we stopped “pumping out CO2” er breathing, granted we would be dead. As for “other greenhouse gasses” that reference must have been to farting. But what has that got to do with photosynthesis? Plants were around a long long time before we arrived on the scene Mr K.

By: John Hunwick

John Hunwick — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Jim Hansen, as a true scientist, is following to its logical conclusion, the implications of what we are finding out about climate change and what must be done to ensure a decent future for all life on earth, including our grandchildren. A precautionary approach to global warming clearly indicates that we need to reduce CO2 emissions quickly. Of all the places in the world that can replace coal-fired power stations with solar wind and geothermal, it is Australia. There is no need to invent or create ways of sequestering CO2 emissions in the ground - just leave the coal there! The cost of the changeover, as economists will tell you, will be far less than carrying on business-as-usual.

By: Ivan Wainwright

Ivan Wainwright — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The question that none of the global warming apologists can answer is this: given that CO2 has been rising since the 1950’s, and given that the earth was warming during the last three decades of the 20th century, what would the temperature be today had CO2 not risen?
The global warming argument is of the ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ type. CO2 rose, so that must have been the cause of the warming. Historically that just doesn’t stand up: in past times, warming has preceeded increasing CO2, not the other way round.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Biology 101 Richard McGuire: If you are not putting out CO2 then then I GAURANTEE YOU that you are already long dead as opposed to just apparently brain dead….

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

No need to remind readers Richard McGuire what a clown you are. I’ll repeat it here:

If we stop ‘pumping out’ CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in perpetuity know that at that point we shall be dead….CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and life

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Read the post, but knew the score before hand.

It is a fact that carbon dioxide is a natural part of life, but the specious argument that any amount of carbon dioxide is a natural and healthy part of life is a brand message from the fossil fuel industry. Don’t believe me, see their expensive advert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDi4BZ4Ivk

Carbon dioxide is, in fact, a poison. Pure CO2 is used as a fumigant for rats, and outgassing of CO2 from a lake in Camaroon managed to kill 1700 people with its healthy, natural properties in in 1986. It is a fact, apart from getting oxygen into the body, the main purpose of respiration is to keep CO2 below a toxic level of about 50 mmol/L in the blood by breathing it out. Try the breathholding experiment. No really, please.

Clearly the parallel with cyanide is made for rhetorical effect. If one is not being obtuse, however, the clear point is that a range of poisons are a “natural part of life” but without it implying they pose no danger whatever the levels which occur. This is true of cyanide, as it is true of carbon dioxide.

I agree that the naturalness of carbon dioxde is completly irrelevant to arguments about AGW, but you brought it up as an issue. Mass extinctions mediated by carbon dioxide are natural, it doesn’t mean they are good.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

That would be THE James Hansen

1.Who recently told a US House committee on energy and climate that he thought top executives of coal and oil companies should be tried for “crimes against humanity and nature.”

2.Who recently gave evidence at a criminal trial in the U.K. against Greenpeace protesters who broke in and damaged a coal fired power station, Hansen did not evoke the language of liberty or rights or people’s needs to justify Greenpeace’s alleged criminal damage; instead he claimed that the ‘scientific evidence’ proved it was legitimate for protesters to try to shut down power stations.

3.There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). It’s data is at variance with the others and is consistently reporting higher mean global temperatures and its data has been mired in controversy.:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/27/do2708.xml

Even more searching questions have been raised over Hansen’s figures by two expert blogs. One is Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the computer analyst who earlier exposed the notorious “hockeystick” graph that was shamelessly exploited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. (This used a flawed computer model to suppress evidence that the world was hotter in the Middle Ages than today.) The other site is Watts Up With That, run by the meteorologist Anthony Watts.

James Hansen is a very controversial figure. Rudd would do well to stay well away,

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

No CO2 = No photosynthesis = no life

Higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 = More photosynthesis = Greater food production

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I would be interested in knowing how this guy is affiliated with NASA ?

Is he working on some carbon-free booster rockets for the next Space Shuttle - or does he need a little itsy-bitsy country like Australia to go back to the stone-age while providing him with some carbon offset for the next launch ?

Before accepting his manifesto I would like an explanation as to why we shouldn't expect an ice-age to hit first - after all wasn't that the accepted position of the world's eminent scientists in the 1960s ?