the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

ABSURD AND MORE ABSURD

Posted by Jeff Id on December 18, 2009

A guest post by request from, Jon Rappoport

—————————-

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  As a reporter, whenever I run into something that sounds, looks, feels like, and adds up to, a non-sequitur, a chunk of absurd illogic, my eyes light up and rays of eager anticipation shoot out of my head.

I’ve got one of those absurdities, as far as I can tell, and I’m chewing on it.  It has to do THE THIRD WORLD and GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS.

I know I’m supposed to assume those two items go hand in hand and are intimately connected.  I’m supposed to assume the tie-ins are obvious.  But I restrain myself from believing as I keep chewing.

So let us begin.

I keep reading about efforts to help developing, poor, Third-World nations vis-à-vis climate change.

Forgetting, for the moment, fraudulent climate science, I want to understand what this “help” means.

On the one hand, there seems to be an implication that developing countries are inordinately spewing CO2 into the air.  Really?  Nations with a tiny fraction of the industry of First World countries are major bad actors?

Oh, you mean China and India.  Oh.  Well, in that case, just say China and India.  Are there any other “developing” countries that are major CO2 producers on a level with, say, the US and the EU?  I don’t see them.  Am I missing something here?  I thought part of the definition of “developing” was “very little heavy industry.”

On the other hand, there is a big push to help developing countries avoid the effects of global warming: massive floods, contaminated water, and deforestation.

Hmm.  Lots of developing countries already feature contaminated water, which is a prime cause of illness.  The problem has existed for a very long time—and there are many companies that could go into those areas and, for very little money, clean up the water.  Apparently, the men who run those nations don’t want their citizens to be healthy.

As for the devastating flooding and deforestation—if I’m not mistaken, the doomsday scenarios being painted by the climate PR gods would imminently affect EVERYONE on the planet, right?  Seacoasts washed away, drowning of cities and towns and villages and empty land.  I mean, according to these dire predictions, who would survive?  Fish?  So why focus on Third World countries?

Then there is the “climate-change” goal of installing green energy technology in Third World nations, where, presently, relatively little energy technology and infra-structure exist at all.  Well, use all the windmills and solar collectors you want to, and the impact would be very small.  The cost would be huge.  With present green technology, you can’t make a dent in overall energy needs.  It doesn’t work.

However, you can doom those people to energy solutions that don’t pan out, and therefore you can provoke decades of continued primitive conditions. In other words, more of the same.  Grinding poverty, starvation, illness, death.

Since these issues aren’t hard to understand, I have to conclude that the real motives for (absurdly) linking climate-change and Third World “help” are different from the announced goals.

In other words, behind these climate-change-Third-World non-sequiturs, certain people will make “green” fortunes; ultimately, depopulation in the Third World will quicken; “help for the poor” will function as a feel-good distracting cover story for the parallel weakening and destruction of carbon-based industry in the First World; the billions and trillions in money transfers from the First World to the Third World would aid in further bankrupting industrial nations, and certain perspicacious men would find ways of diverting and stealing those extraordinary sums of money in transit.

In this nightmare scenario, the agenda for a global management system (de facto world government) would advance, based on “the environmental threat.”  Save the planet by wrecking societies and economies.

Severely limit the legal ability and personal freedom to create new companies and businesses that aren’t overtly green.  Issue every citizen a ceiling-limit carbon card, from which deductions are made every time he buys energy or travels.  Base political/economic planetary control on set numbers for “total available Earth resources,” and from those numbers begin to allocate—from a central control point—how those resources will be accessed and deployed from one end of the planet to the other.

In this effort, it would be made clear that capitalism and the free market are passé, and the new wave would be “compassion for all” emanating from share-and-care world leaders who are governing and managing Earth.  You know, the people we can really trust.  The people who have no conflicts of interest.  The people who have nothing personal to gain.  The people who are kind and loving and gentle.  The people who can issue edicts and make them stick, with force if necessary.

Those people.

JON RAPPOPORT

www.nomorefakenews.com

www.insolutions.info

41 Responses to “ABSURD AND MORE ABSURD”

  1. P Gosselin said

    Saving energy, costing lives?
    http://autos.aol.com/article/led-lights-snow
    h/t Dirk Maxeiner at
    http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/stromspar_ampeln_kalt_erwischt/

  2. crosspatch said

    There is a certain political faction in this world that gauges its success on how many people are being “helped” by “programs”. Increasing the number of “programs” and the expansion of the existing “programs” is considered “progress” by this faction. People who adhere to this philosophy hold people who manage such programs in great celebrity. An associate deputy assistant secretary to the Department of World Widget Regulation gains a circle of admirers at the coolest cocktail parties. And they are all ears when he describes the need to take even more of the people’s money to combat the evil that “Big Widget” does to the oppressed masses of the third world who must be “protected” from “exploitation” by the more advanced nations.

    Never mind that these programs actually doom these people to being dependent forever on the advanced nations giving them programs and money. Some say the definition of a politician is someone who would condemn you to hell and have you looking forward to the trip. That is what these people are doing. They are enslaving the people of the third world, addicting them to “programs” and preventing any locally developed solutions to problems by removing any need to develop solutions locally. They enslave these people but frame it as “liberating”. They provide the same outcome as if they had done things themselves but with the difference that if the “programs” are cut off, they spiral right back into the same mess they were in before because their improved situation wasn’t really theirs, it was given to them by the outside and actually they are really no better off than they were before.

    So creating a program that gets the entire third world into it is a great “success” in their minds. That is millions, maybe even potentially a billion or two, people who are now dependent on them forever. The UN has never solved a problem. They manage the problem in perpetuity providing titles and paychecks to political cronies while making sure the people they are “helping” never get to a point where they can help themselves.

    This is their change to get control over the economy of the entire Third World through handouts and the developed world through regulation and taxes while actively working to destroy indigenous solutions by reducing the need to develop them. Countries starve while their leaders skim the tax money and waste resources on petty wars. We then send them our food surplus and they survive to continue the process.

    They are “helping” the third world to death and this is just another mechanism to accomplish that end. They are enslaving the third world through “assistance”.

    Global Warming is the perfect way to do this. It is a “crisis” that one can not invalidate through the use of their own senses. It is one created through data collection, calculation, and adjustment that “average people” can’t “understand” and so we must take their word for it. They tell us that the consequences are too grave for us to ignore them. Their rhetoric is to make us fear not giving them our money and our resources so they can “save” us from the looming “catastrophe”. The faction that favors personal responsibility, education, local solutions, empowerment of the individual, smaller government and lower taxes with increased emphasis on local solutions to local problems caused the problem, to hear them say it. We must have a centrally managed world if we are to head off this “disaster” with global coordination of industrial and economic activity.

    It’s madness.

  3. G Howe said

    Excellent post. Thanks.

  4. [snip off topic, and wrong]

  5. RB said

    I wouldn’t call myself a sceptic with regards to the science, but I am certainly a sceptic with regards to policy and its efficacy. Govt in the U.S. is in my opinion much more impressive for effectiveness than in most developing countries. If you can’t believe the GDP numbers from China, would you believe its emission numbers? Many analysts have in fact stopped believing China’s GDP numbers, and they have been looking at its electricity consumption data instead to get a better idea of whether the economy is growing or shrinking and it has certainly been telling a different story over the past year. With the endemic corruption in India, it doesn’t take more than a few bribes to get around any regulations. And these are the bigger developing countries! I neither see effective monitoring taking place, nor do I think that the American public is fully aware of the costs involved. Therefore, politically it will be a hard sell here as well. Frankly, the only way I see a move towards decarbonizing is due to persistently high energy prices, and as a peak cheap oil devotee, I am quite optimistic on that front.

  6. RB said

    Some of the deeper global politics at work: China wants to continue the trade imbalances that have made it the manufacturing capital of the world. And the U.S. wants China to give it time to become a “green” superpower and continue its supremacy.

    The Anglo-Saxon establishment has recently become more respectful towards its Asian partners, inviting China to become a ‘stakeholder’ in a ‘ChiAmerican’ global order, or ‘G2’. What they mean is that China should not rock the boat, but should continue to help maintain American economic dominance (in return, perhaps, for more consideration of Beijing’s concerns over Tibet and Taiwan). This would enable Washington to buy precious time to secure its command over emergent sectors of the world economy through debt-financed government investment in green technology and other innovations, and hence remake its ailing supremacy into a green hegemony. This seems to be exactly what the Obama administration is betting on as its long-term response to the global crisis and declining American power.

  7. denise said

    Politicians Cost Lives, link caused my Firefox browser to crash. I lost some information?????? Is he a troll or what? I am not a hard core climate denier or anything, I am just looking for a balanced view of things.

  8. stan said

    Sending lots of money to kleptocrat dictators is obviously the ultimate in demonstrating compassion for the poor. And since pouring all that money into their swiss bank accounts also saves the planet, who could possibly object?

  9. G Howe said

    Denise- The letter from PCL #4 looks very fishy. Hope your computer is OK.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #9 I fixed the link, I’m not sure if it was spam or not but it was obviously wrong. Sorry I’ve not had much time for these things today.

  11. twawki said

    Well you can get your Carbonhagon goodie bag, absolutely free and explains everything

    http://twawki.com/2009/12/18/1443/

  12. Philemon said

    “Save the planet by wrecking societies and economies.”

    Check out the participants here:
    A conference at Pocantico, at Kikjuit, the Rockefeller estate.
    http://www.pewclimate.org/pocantico.cfm

    and here:
    Chevron, BP, GE, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, MGM, Dow Chemical, ConocoPhillips… and oh my, look at all those banks and accountants – are “stakeholders” in the carbon trading racket.
    http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249

    Velly intelestink.

  13. Philemon said

    Sorry, just thought the Pocantico thing might need an explanation of the history.

    John D. Rockefeller, III was known as “Mr. Asia” and felt a strong need for “Population Control”; not for his family, of course. His Population Council “…played a crucial role in creating a professional establishment in the population field. The council made grants to universities and institutes, building the work of a handful of scholars into a full fledged academic discipline.”*

    *Peter Collier and David Horowitz,The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York, 1976), p. 288.

  14. Thanks for your comments. I’m following up suggested links.

    So far, reading the responses to my article, my observation holds. Even if we falsely assume official climate-change science is correct, making a tie-in between GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS and THE THIRD WORLD is a non-sequitur.

    Under the generalized cover of warming, an entirely different agenda is being pursued. Massive destruction plus massive profits for a few.

  15. Jeff Id said

    When you consider the point above, there really shouldn’t be any need of wealth transfer. We could achieve much greater effect by investing those billions into accelerating nukes and energy research. Since the communist not-developing nations don’t emit much, the point must be different than advertised.

  16. Philemon—thanks for the links and Rockefeller clarification on population control. No question about it, implementing “green solutions” in the Third World would result in depopulation. Right in line with the long-held Rockefeller dream.

  17. Jeff—yes, that’s what I’m saying. Pick out the nations emitting the lowest levels of co2 and claim they need the most help in order to stave off more PLANETARY warming…it makes zero sense. It’s absolute garble. Ergo, the true agenda is obviously something else.

  18. boballab said

    Ok this is a think way back moment but there was something that Dr. Boehmener-Christensen (Sp?) mentioned as a thought experiment in her letter to the Financial Times after climategate broke. She posited who would have benefitted in the 1970’s from the Global cooling scare. This made me think all the way back to when I was a kid going to my first movie in a cinema. Before the feature there was this little documentry about the comming Ice Age and the scientists knew it and what we needed to do. Guess who sponsored this thing? Exxon. This was in 1972/73 time frame, now look at who founded the CRU in 1971 (I can’t believe connolley left this in):

    ” Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions”

    2 oil companies and the Rockefeller Foundation are the founders of CRU. Mighty Convient don’t you think that the place formed by Oil Companies that were looking to profit from the Comming “Ice Age” now just happens to back AGW. Then lo and behold who do we see invovled in Emissions trading? Those same Oil companies.

    Now we Introduce one Maurice Strong who just so happens to come from the Canadian Oil Industry and is the one to form the UNEP in 1972.

    “The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world.[7] As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.”

    The IPCC was first formed under this man but has since wiggled out of his grasp. If you remember back when Climatgate first broke Fox News unearthed that document that was made by a group founded by Mr. Strong on how the UNEP could regain power in the UN and across the globe through taking over the IPCC. Mr. Strong was also implicated in the UN oil for food scandal.

    So there you go it has always been about being green, just not enviromental green, money green and if you keep the third world down you have a nice cheap labor force.

  19. boballab said

    This is going to leave a mark! Check out this article on Wikipedia and Connolley.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

  20. Boballab–sublime. So can we unearth and describe, in very simple language, how the oil companies, who almost everyone would say are the co2 emitting kings, would benefit from promoting co2 as the scourge of the earth?

    Less oil delivered, higher prices per gallon, and the price is tuned so, overall, profits increase.

    More, though. Something about the carbon trading scheme, perhaps. Third World nations are given, free, huge amounts of carbon crdits which they turn around and sell to the oil companies? And the selling price is fixed so, overall, the oil companies can burn as much effluent as they want to, pay nothing in fines, sell less oil at higher prices, and make out like bandits? Just speculating.

  21. Geoff Sherrington said

    As I’ve been saying for years, money taken from developed GHG emitters and given to underdevelopeds will simply result in them spending windfall money to increase their GHG production. So GHG drops out of the equation (it’s a prop) and the real agenda is a money churn with greedy deviates taking a cut off the side each time the money turns over.

    Have you ever seen a list of the ways that are intended for windfall monies to be spent while at the same time reducing GHG? I have not. I have not even seen a list of suggestions (beyond going nuclear) for how one can spend windfall WITHOUT increasing GHG.

  22. conversefive said

    Oh, “those people.” You mean the fascists, the dictators, the Stalins and Lennons and Hitlers and Castros. Yes, “those people.” I know of whom you speak.

  23. John Bowman said

    The Globalwarmists are great at conflation. The major problem in the Third World is an inability – for a variety of reasons – for populations to co-operate and organise to exploit their natural resources and labour pool, particularly those Countries rich in resources, with favourable climate and plenty of manpower. Thus they are low emitters and “victims” of the West’s success, rather than their own failure.

    Except of course in China and India where they are doing precisely those things, thus emitting more and more CO2, now “victims” of their own success.

    There is, to me, a clear desire to keep the Third World in its place, under control as aid junkies to be told how to live their lives by elements in the West.

    Should the Third World develop, some in the West feel their positions of power, authority, and self-righteous version of morality under threat.

  24. Brownedoff said

    With any luck, if the representatives of the G-77 countries keep screaming for a few weeks demanding action on catastrophic man made global warming and the dopey MSM gives them the oxygen of publicity (apparently one loon mutilated herself), then an unintended consequence will be that the general public (who don’t follow this blog, WUWT, CA etc.) will finally be appaised of the AGW scam and possibly will start taking notice, thinking about it and then the pennies will start to drop.

  25. marc said

    Also, EPA should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fat persons

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/03/congress-mulls-bovine-flatulence-as-epa-readies-greenhouse-gas-decision.html

  26. jimmy said

    One word – Bilderberg!

  27. To all the forum members,

    I am not a troll and I apologize if my link and website seem unprofessional. That is because I am not a web designer and my website I built my self.

    But to call me off topic when we are talking about AGW I think is very strange. Even stranger is the fact that I have a video of a very simple experiment that you can all try for yourselves which disproves the greenhouse effect of CO2 and you call it wrong. That, I would say, unless you have a vested interest, is what I call fishy.

    I am no troll. As you can see from my web page I am an author of a book about CO2. My simple experiment is concerned with CO2 and if you are not willing to do the experiment to see for yourselves then that says more about you than it does me.

    I am sorry but I guess I misjudged the purpose of this site. Still go ahead and snip me again, I guess CO2 is of topic hear because AGW is about temperature right?

    Snip away.

    Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

  28. twawki said

    And so we see not only does the environment invalidate the AGW theory but that it also fails the 3 main scientific tests – tarski’s theorum, the classical model of science and scientific method.

    http://twawki.com/2009/12/20/tarskis-theorum/

  29. Jeff Id said

    #27, I don’t have a clue how the earlier post had meaning regarding the specific issues of whether giving third world countries billions could save the world. I don’t like snipping people, but when I first read your link it was tempting. I left it up until others complained.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Of that fact, there is absolutely no question and this blog is about science and truth first, not weird low end proofs and extreme conclusions. The question lies in the magnitude of the warming (it could be very very little or even worse than presented) and the consequence of that warming. Since you have enough interest to make a blog and video, I would recommend redirecting your efforts and look into how increased warming affects water in the atmosphere, cloud formation and eventual temperature increase. Perhaps some experiments with urban warming bias are a good place to make an impact.

    Trying to prove global warming wrong with a few bottles of gas is a waste of time. Also, I couldn’t get the video to run either and gave up.

    You are welcome to comment here, but try to pay attention to the headpost, and keep an open mind or the physics will run your otherwise good intentions over. I’d recommend reading around the blog if you want to know what it’s about.

  30. [...] Absurd and More Absurd A guest post by request from, Jon Rappoport —————————- DECEMBER [...] [...]

  31. Jeff Id

    Please forgive me for appearing to post off topic. I was not aware that it would upset anyone. The point of my book and experiment (movie) is to show that CO2 does not cause warming. And if you follow the thread from this point I think you will see also that I am not so of topic.

    The claim is that the science of the greenhouse effect is well understood, established 150 years ago. Well if you read my free pdf book “CO2 The Debate Is Not Over” and watch the movie, which should play if you browse back and relaunch a few times, you will see that just like the rest of this AGW fraud, the greenhouse effect is also a fraud.

    You say that “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and of that fact there is absolutely no question”. Well it is very easy to test if CO2 traps heat. In my experiment I test almost pure CO2 with an infrared halogen heater and find that it traps no heat at all. In fact it performs worse than ordinary air. To try and imply that on some quantum, invisible, undetectable, and as yet unproven level, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat, is simply just more AGW fraud.

    It is important, if you want to claim to be interested in science and truth, to remember that all gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit infrared. CO2 is not unique in this respect. It is the melting/freezing points of substances which we should be paying attention to. When you compare the temperature at which Oxygen and Nitrogen become ice (54.36 K and 65.15 K respectively) to that of CO2 (194.65 K) the greenhouse gas fraud becomes more visible. Remember all gases are gases by virtue of the fact that they have absorbed large amounts of infrared. Had they not they would still be ice.

    Therefore I submit to you and the forum at large that all gases are greenhouse gases and if not, then none at all. If you accept this, and as far as I’m concerned it is a given, then Oxygen and Nitrogen gas which are 20% and 79% of the atmosphere respectively, start to give some perspective to the so called “greenhouse effect” of CO2 at 0.03811% of the atmosphere.

    If you are interested in the origins of AGW fraud may I suggest you read:

    Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat by John Tyndall.

    This book is a very good example of 19th century scientific sophistry. It also appears to be the origin, as far as I can tell of AGW fraud. I realise the implications of what I am saying are enormous and unpleasant but as the Air Vent is the place that the CRU leak first appeared, I would think you and the forum members here would be open to the likelihood of conspiracy to commit AGW fraud reaching back over many years. Indeed, thanks to the CRU leak we now know that AGW fraud at least spans decades, so why not centuries?

    There is no doubt that AGW is a fraud. More than that, it is a mass conspiracy involving thousands of individuals, organisations and institutions and billions in tax payers money. Of this there most certainly is no doubt. The only thing left to establish then, is when this conspiracy began and what could be the true motive. All crimes require a motive and I will not accept that the motive in this case is entirely about money. Many of those involved already have more money than they know what to do with.

    My own enquiries have led me back to John Tyndall, when he was at the Royal institute, mid 19th century. Where he can be placed and closely linked with Thomas H. Huxley, Sir Francis Gaulton and other known Social Darwinists. It is well known that Social Darwinism spawned the Eugenics movement and that this movement has survived through generations and is still very much alive today. The originators of Social Darwinism and, more importantly, Eugenics have a history which can be tracked not only to Nazi Germany but right into the heart of the United Nations and therefore the UN IPCC itself. Intergenerational Eugenics obsessed elitists are not that hard to spot amongst the environmental movement as many visitors to this site will be aware. Indeed as an example, Julian Huxley is a founding member of the United Nations. This then seems to give some clarity as to why so many of the proposed “climate change” policies seem set up to do harm to humanity in the name of “saving the planet”.

    So although it may have been a little cryptic for some, what I was inferring with my original post, which you have censored and called WRONG, even though you claim you have not been able to view the linked movie it refers to, is that the “greenhouse effect” which I and anyone else for that matter, can easily prove to be false, has its roots in the pseudo science of John Tyndall, who himself had firm links to Social Darwinism and early Eugenics. So with respect to the headpost, although not implicitly stated, it is Eugenics which is the true underlying subject of this Rappoport post.

    So as you can see, I may well be paying attention and at much deeper levels than perhaps you are capable of crediting me with. And I certainly don’t need any lessons in physics. The physics of climate science are of the most basic and elementary physics in nature, regardless of what “climatologists” would have people believe.

    Finally I am not trying to prove global warming wrong with a few bottles of gas, I am helping people to test for themselves the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat. It is a fool proof, simple and cheap test which gives undeniable and definitive results and it is highly miss-leading of you to call it a waste of time. Some of the best answers, particularly in the realm of science, are the simplest ones.

    Still I have no hard feelings about being censored on these type of forums. I expect it to be perfectly honest. What I am trying to make people aware of here is the worst and most certainly the largest conspiracy in history. A conspiracy so far reaching that it involves nearly every elitist, political establishment and scientific institution in the world, not to mention the entire propaganda machine referred to as the main stream media. It still makes me feel nauseous and I have been aware of it for many years.

    Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

  32. Jeff Id said

    #31, You clearly believe what you write. I was able to skim your book but cannot play the video. You should upload it to youtube and embed, that way whatever codec your software used get’s translated into a more universal form.

    As far as the deeper levels, I believe you have missed the point completely on CO2 creating warming. Your book correctly identifies limitations of the greenhouse term, it even notes that CO2 will catch the heat better, then you say the heat is released to space. The warming in fact comes from the delay in heat release. The book contains many straw man arguments with oversold conclusions. Were the science anywhere near as simple as you describe, the models would work. I agree with many of the points still, including the uncertainty of historic CO2. The one about claiming CO2 will not cause warming that needs to be cut out completely.

    It’s this particular argument which gives credence to the advoscienticians as it is such a well known fact. So when you come here and post on a thread about copenhagen politics that you’ve proven global warming wrong using the a few bottles of gas, radiant heater and some stick on thermometers, we already know you’ve screwed up. Combine that with ‘important news’ and several ‘Frauds’ and you’ve got the wrong blog, I still let it stay until people started complaining.

    The argument isn’t about whether CO2 will trap more heat, the argument is about whether the amount of heat it traps after atmospheric response is small, medium or large and further whether the heat can or will cause any problems at all. It’s a far stronger argument (because it’s correct) and it has the added benefit of keeping the poliscienticians from claiming you’re an ignorant denier.

  33. Jeff Id

    I can see I’m completely wasting my time here. I was right the first time. This blog is not what I thought it was.

    You have deliberately miss quoted me while at the same time completely ignoring the most important points I have made. You try to dismiss me with humiliation and rudeness yet your own arguments are disjointed and juvenile. I wonder where we have seen these tactics before?

    There is no delay in heat release from CO2, the effect is quite the opposite. Any one who has seen my experiment or has tried it out themselves, will know that pure CO2 re-emits heat faster than ordinary air, this is reproducible by anyone and is what is known as proof. So your claims are just as fraudulent as the rest of the AGW deception.

    CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. This is not something we have to take on faith either way. CO2 is so easy to produce, baking soda and vinegar for instance. Grab some clear plastic , some cheap tropical fish-tank thermometers and a halogen heater to produce infrared and try and reproduce the “greenhouse effect”, put the claims to the test, its so easy a child can do it. My film has had about 80,000 hits in the last week alone and I suspect many children will have already done so, but clearly Jeff Id of the Air Vent has not.

    You have tried to dismiss this simple experiment as meaningless, yet no more than three days after I uploaded it on my site, the BBC produced their own fudged version of my experiment on News Night to try to counter me (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight Please browse to 16/12/09) and then they wheeled out Britain’s ex-chief scientist to try to lend credit to their blatant fraud. Even though they had to cheat by using two heat sources instead of a single heat source as in my original test and even though they cut the film half way through the test and then claimed that the CO2 took ten minutes to heat up which is also completely and utterly false, ultimately purging themselves in front of millions of British viewers, and you say “we already know you’ve screwed up”.

    Well you are right about one thing, I have definitely got the wrong blog. I am looking for a blog where people are interested in REPRODUCIBLE experimental evidence, otherwise known as science.

    The AGW fraud is dead. The greenhouse effect is dead. The carbon slave trade is dead. No need to take my word for it, just watch the carbon trade markets collapse in early 2010.

    Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

  34. Jeff Id said

    As I said I cannot run your video, I tried several different players. Several of the clicks came from this site.

    I’m glad you’re happy with your work, I’ve seen similar experiments several times. Your conclusion is wrong and we don’t need to even look at it to know it. You have failed on so many avenues in your experiment.

    You have taken an additional step of using a single source, that many miss. But did you consider the spatial distribution of the heat you input? no Did you try reversing the bottles? I don’t know. Did you take into account that your thermometers are not accurate or precise? I doubt it. Plastic thickness, actual gas concentration? Humidity? You’ve even got thermometers being direct heated by the infrared source!! What does that prove?

    The big one you missed though is the distribution of the absorption band is what creates the warming. You’ve hit the gas with a blackbody curve at what temp? Did you calculate the expected absorptance according to gas concentrations with and without CO2 and compare it to the measured?

    With all that missing from this experiment you have the gut’s to run around screaming IMPORTANT NEWS!! I’ve proven AGW wrong!! I’ve let it sit despite these obvious failures. It’s not a good experiment — even if the bubbleheads on the BBC think it is – BTW, the two sources was BS for sure.

    I tell you what, let me know what video player makes your video go, and I’ll make it a headpost.

  35. Jeff Id said

    BTW, just to be clear. In making your claim, you are not just going against climatology but actually quantum physics.

  36. AMac said

    By happy coincidence, this post at WUWT.

    “The most important result of this experiment is how it shows students so many issues of experiment design. First, there is the issue of how difficult temperature measurements are to make accurately. Students are quite surprised at this. They are equally surprised that seemingly identical temperature sensors will not measure identically. Second, there is also the difficulty of proving conclusively that A causes B when the experiment includes confounding factors. This is an important lesson about the value of skepticism in climate change research, observations, and publicity.”

  37. Jeff Id

    the movie is quicktime and plays in safari after a couple of attempts. It is a steaming version and this is where I have issues I think.

    Anyway the points you make are invalid simply because of the way the test is performed. The heat is turned on until the temps exceed the 30C on the thermomiters. Then the heat is turned of. The fact that there are three bottles with one being empty dry air as the controll invalidates your assertions that the test is not good. As I have already said sometimes the most simple answers are the best ones. All I can do is refer you back to my earlier point in #31 which you have chosen to ignore, regards melting/freezing points and atmospheric percentages.

    I am well aware of the implications of this simple experiment. Billions of tax payers money defrauded by hooky pseudo scientists. As “WE” keep saying, the biggest scientific fraud in history. The fact that AGW can be debunked by a child for £5 is simply an indication of the arrogance of the scientific community, that they thought they could pull this BS off.

    Try all you will to discredit this simple test but you will fail, the test is good and the control is validation, sorry.

  38. Jeff Id said

    I cannot run the video no matter what I do, I’ve tried two computers and an iPhone. I’ve downloaded the file and tried 3 players. If you upload to youtube it might work. Otherwise it’s useless to discuss.

    Your codec is not a standard one. If you upload the video to something like youtube, everyone will be able to see it. I’ll link to your video as a headpost and 5,000 people can describe the multiple problems with your ‘proof’ and you can defend it.

  39. I will fix it over Christmas.

    The file you have downloaded is just the reference movie.

    But you really don’t need the video, all you need, as I have said already is the equipment, three empty plastic bottles, one halogen heater, some CO2 (carbonated water is good) and three tropical fish-tank thermometers.

    If you cannot devise a foolproof experiment to show whether CO2 traps heat with this equipment, then the only person you are kidding is yourself.

    The question is not does the video play but rather can you test CO2 to see if it traps more heat than air?

    The answer is of course, yes you can test CO2 to see if it traps more heat than ordinary air. It is very easy to do and you do not need to be a scientist to do it.

    The result is NEGATIVE, CO2 traps no heat. No substance traps heat. If it did then there would have been a net energy increase on Earth since the beginning of time and we would not be hear. One of the many facts AGW fraud repeatedly ignores is that CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppmv without causing warming. Also current CO2 levels continue to rise while temperature does not. All these points and many more besides which the AGW camp pretend have not been raised (fingers in the ears I’m not listening), paint a very definitive picture.

    Anyway Jeff its been fun and I wish you and the forum at large, a merry Christmas.

    Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!

    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html

  40. Jeff Id said

    If I understand now what you’re doing now, you are confusing heat capacity with the greenhouse effect. What’s more, you are using weak instrumentation which has no ability to detect a small enough difference. Further, you don’t even try to calculate the size of the difference you should be able to detect.

    I’ll put it up for you still- so you’ll get the opposite of a snip.

    Merry Christmas, keep fighting the otherwise good fight.

  41. Joshua Jin said

    Doing some browsing and noticed your website appears a bit messed up in my K-meleon internet browser. But fortunately hardly anyone uses it any longer but you may want to look into it. – Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses. – Confucius

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: