Busted: American Lung Association Never Mentions CO2 as Harmful to Human Health
Via: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/american-lung-association-never-mentions-co2-as-harmful/
I just finished watching Chris Wallace grill EPA director Scott Pruitt and was shocked to see the questioning of Chris Wallace. It was if he got his talking points from MSNBC or Michael Mann. The one comment he repeated were highly speculative comments made about the clean power act saving thousands of lives. To support these claims he referenced the American Lung Association’s position multiple times. I found that extremely odd. If there is any organization that understands that CO2 is not a pollution, it is the American Lung Association. The entire purpose of the lung is to manage the delicate balance between CO2 and O2 in the human body. CO2 is necessary for the lung and blood to function. Too little or too much CO2 in the lung and the pH of the blood can change, hyper- ventilating can cause a person to lose consciousness, too much CO2 and a person can suffocate. The standard level of CO2 in the lungis between 2.7 to 7.5%. To put that in perspective atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, or 0.04%. 2.7 to 7.5% or 27,000 ppm to 75,000 ppm is between 67 and 187x the level of the atmosphere. Submarines can have CO2 levels near 10,000 ppm. The lungs have absolutely no problem handling high levels of CO2. Plants are the same. Higher CO2 levels make plants more drought resistant and greatly increases their yields. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm.
typical or physiological CO2 levels in the lungs which range from about 20 to 50 mm Hg or from about 2.7 to 7.5%.
It is for that reason, I questioned Chris Wallace’s approach and had to check out the American Lung Association. Sure enough, the American Lung Association makes the obligatory platitudes towards “climate change,” but never with an “N” mentions CO2 as a harmful pollutant. Sometimes a half-truth is often quite the lie. They did nothing to clarify the critical role CO2 plays in improving and saving the lives of every living organism. They do vaguely mention “carbon pollution” and state that utility plants produce CO2, but conveniently never mention CO2 as a health risk. Interestingly, they do mention that “biomass plants” are major sources of pollution. I’m pretty sure far more people die and suffer from natural causes of asthma and hayfever than CO2. I’ve never heard of anyone having an allergic …
Coral Reef Sophistry: Reality — ‘Not due to CO2’
Via: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/coral-reef-sophistry/
Almost everytime I look into an alarmist’s claim, there is an easy to identify natural cause of the observation.
The arctic sea ice is greatly impacted by the wind direction, storms and warm water entering the arctic. None of which are due to CO2.
Polar bears are doing just great, so there is no issue there.
The Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.
The global temperatures are relatively stable if the urban heat island effect and temperature station location are controlled for. This is supported by “unadjusted” long term thermometer records.
Water vapor causes lower tropospheric temperatures, not CO2.
Now we have an explanation for Great Barrier Reef bleaching. El Ninos and El Ninas alter the sea level of the reefs, and the lower the sea level exposing the coral. Coral is shallow water tend to bleach. Not due to CO2, but due to exposure. Put almost anything out in direct sunlight and it will turn white. No CO2 needed.
If Skeptics used same tactics as warmists: ‘It’s Official, Global Warming & Higher CO2 Ended California Drought!’
If the climate realists used the same tactics as the climate alarmists today’s headlines across the globe would read “It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!” The entire climate change house of cards is largely based upon pseudo-science, where an outlier observation is portrayed as the norm. For example, the bleaching of the coral reefs is due to exposure to the sun, not more CO2. The loss of Arctic sea Ice is largely due to natural changes in the ocean and wind currents. Recent claims of a warming Antarctica are based upon an extreme case of cherry picking. Global temperature records are greatly influenced by known non-CO2 related factors such as the Urban Heat Island Effect, that when adjusted for, eliminate most of if not all warming from the data set. Experiments to demonstrate CO2 caused warming are simply laughable, as are the IPCC models created to “prove” the highly flawed theory. The number of hurricanes has collapsed, but you won’t find that in the headlines.
None of that matters however because climate “science” isn’t about science, it is about politics. It is all about how the story is spun. In reality, the “Social Cost of Carbon” is negative. There are astronomical benefits to burning fossil fuels and higher CO2 levels. Life expectancy, quality of life and economic growth have all increased along with atmospheric CO2. As has the “greening of the Northern Hemisphere.” Higher crop yields and lower food and energy prices are all directly associated with petroleum production and higher CO2 levels. Societies thrive during warm periods, they collapse during cooling and Ice Ages. Now, with the ending of the devastating California drought, by sticking with the standards and methods consistent with the field of climate “science,” we can now claim that global warming and the burning of fossil fuels has ended the California drought. The CO2 evidence is overwhelming. Higher CO2 “caused” the end to the California drought. The numbers simply don’t lie
.…
Oh No! Study warns of CO2 at 5,000 parts per million by the year 2400! ‘To cause unprecedented warming’
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/04/05/study-offers-dire-warning-climate-change/cyozAC0fjeamFAWhiEXAFL/story.html
Growing Skepticism: 150 Scientific Papers in 2017 Support Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 3. April 2017
650+ Skeptic Papers
Published Since 2016
During the first 3 months of 2017, over 150 papers have already been published in scientific journals that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)
The 2017 publication rate (~50 scientific papers per month) is slightly ahead of last year’s pace. That’s because in 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging the “consensus” claim that weather and climate changes are significantly determined by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
These 150 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate, and that natural factors — the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations (NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO), cloud and aerosol albedo variations — have exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present.
The guideline for the list of 150 scientific papers with links and summaries and graphs has been divided into 3 parts on 2 pages (Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).
Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Solar Influence On Climate (37)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (20)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (3)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (1)
Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (12)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2)
Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (3)
No Trends In Extreme, Unstable Weather In Recent Decades (3)
Natural CO2 Sources Out-Emit Humans (2)
Fires, Anthropogenic Climate Change Disconnect (1)
Miscellaneous (5)
Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (9)
No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (10)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (22)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (1)
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (10)
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/03/growing-skepticism-already-150-new-2017-scientific-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.FQuYLxYX.dpuf…
Wildflowers bloom big across California’s desert
Rain-fed wildflowers have been sprouting from California’s desert sands after lying dormant for years — producing a spectacular display that has drawn record crowds and traffic jams to tiny towns like Borrego Springs.
An estimated 150,000 people in the past month have converged on this town of about 3,500, roughly 85 miles northeast of San Diego, for the so-called super bloom.
Wildflowers are springing up in different landscapes across the state and the western United States thanks to a wet winter. In the Antelope Valley, an arid plateau northeast of Los Angeles, blazing orange poppies are lighting up the ground.
But a “super bloom” is a term for when a mass amount of desert plants bloom at one time. In California, that happens about once in a decade in a given area. It has been occurring less frequently with the drought. Last year, the right amount of rainfall and warm temperatures produced carpets of flowers in Death Valley.
So far this year, the natural show has been concentrated in the 640,000-acre (1,000-square-mile) Anza Borrego State Park that abuts Borrego Springs.
How dare he!? EPA scientific integrity office reviewing Pruitt’s comments that CO2 is not climate control knob
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific integrity watchdog is reviewing whether EPA chief Scott Pruitt violated the agency’s policies when he said in a television interview he does not believe carbon dioxide is driving global climate change, according to an email seen by Reuters on Friday.
Lawyers for environmental group the Sierra Club had asked the EPA’s Office of Inspector General to check whether Pruitt violated policy when he told a CNBC interviewer on March 9, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
The EPA Inspector General’s office responded to the Sierra Club on Thursday in an email, saying it had referred the matter to the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer, Francesca Grifo, for review.
“If after the SIO review, she concludes there is some aspect of the letter itself, or her findings or conclusions that she believes are appropriate for further consideration by the OIG, she will so notify the OIG,” the email stated.
A spokeswoman for the EPA defended Pruitt’s comments.
“Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science and commonsense regulations that will protect our environment, without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens that kill jobs,” said Liz Bowman in an emailed statement.
“Differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters is a legitimate and necessary part of EPA’s decision-making process, which is consistent with EPA’s scientific integrity policy that was in place even during the Obama administration,” she added.
The EPA website says its scientific integrity policy requires EPA officials and staff to ensure the agency’s work respects the findings of the broader scientific community.…
Trump’s Next Step on Climate: Reconsider EPA’s CO2 is a ‘pollutant’ finding
On Tuesday, in a series of orders, Mr. Trump instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to rework its Clean Power Plan, which would restrict carbon emissions from existing power plants, mainly coal-fired ones. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the CPP pending judicial review.
Mr. Trump also directed the Interior Department to lift its current moratorium on federal coal leasing and loosen restrictions on oil and gas development (including methane flaring) on federal lands. And he instructed all government agencies to stop factoring climate change into the environmental-review process for federal projects. The federal government will recalculate the “social cost of carbon.”
…
Because they don’t attack the climate-change regulatory problem at its root, Mr. Trump’s orders will not provide enough clarity to U.S. energy companies—particularly electric utilities and coal-mining companies—for their long-term business forecasting or short-term capital investment and head-count planning.
To accomplish that, the Trump administration, led by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, needs to target the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That foundational ruling provided the legal underpinnings for all of the EPA’s follow-on carbon regulations, including the CPP.
It also provided the rationale for the previous administration’s anti-fossil-fuel agenda and its various climate-change initiatives and programs, which spanned more than a dozen federal agencies and cost the American taxpayer roughly $20 billion to $25 billion a year during Mr. Obama’s presidency.
The endangerment finding was the product of a rush to judgment. Much of the scientific data upon which it was predicated—chiefly, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—was already dated by the time of its publication and arguably not properly peer-reviewed as federal law requires.
Although this initially reported “pause” was subsequently eliminated through the downward manipulation of historical temperature data, this latest IPCC assessment calls into question both the predictive power and input data quality of most global climate models, and further highlights the scientific uncertainty surrounding the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change.
An updated EPA endangerment finding based on an objective review of the latest available scientific data is warranted, along with a more sober discussion of the threat posed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the “public health and welfare of current and future generations,” in the words of the original endangerment finding.
As long as the 2009 finding remains on the books, it will …
Enviros should ‘be singing the praises of fracking” – Global CO2 emissions flat for 3rd year — Fuels resistance to UN climate accord
…Global CO2 Emissions Have Stopped Rising, International Energy Agency Says
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat for a third straight year in 2016 even as the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency, signaling a continuing decoupling of emissions and economic activity.
Source: Global CO2 Emissions Have Stopped Rising, International Energy Agency Says…