December 11, 2009

An Inconvenient Truth?



Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

In this short video we have the testimony of a scientist doing what scientists ought to be doing. Simple, repeatable experiments, with all bias removed, no financial incentive, and no politics.

The results are open, honest, dependable and defendable.

See what happens when you look for the truth?

I seriously doubt that this video will be shown to the Climatechangeologists in Copenhagen.

There is no money in it. No big houses, no prime time TV slots, no army of mongs bowing down before you, no gullible politicians desperate to leave some sort of "legacy".

H/T to Spidey for this remarkable find.

CR.

16 comments:

Billy Blofeld said...

Love this - great science at work.

You might also conclude: Fly British Airways and increase your carbon footprint to stop famine by increasing crop yields.

Captain Ranty said...

Billy,

Thanks. It is a failing of mine not to consider the end of my scribblings enough. Often I want to go back and add stuff, and sometimes change stuff, but I rarely do. I saw Paul Flynn (MP and all-round gibbon) do that on his blog and his credibility is non-existent. I'd like to hang on to whatever credibility I may have.

I try not to use BA. I learnt 25 years ago that the cabin crew are more important than the passengers, and I boycotted them in favour of airlines that actually wanted me onboard their flights and did not treat me as an inconvenience. By flying other airlines 20-30 times a year I have cost BA hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years.

I fly instead to one of the European hubs (Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Paris) and connect with my onward flight from there. So I am doing my bit for crop yields and the polar bears. Yay!

CR.

Pesky Anonymous said...

Several years ago I had the pleasure of being given a guided tour of one of these here new-fangled cannabis factories. The proprietor had a big black bottle of CO2 gas from which he would on a regular basis, release a little squirt in the growing room. He explained that this procedure produced noticable extra growth, thus proving that this simple principle is understood even by complete degenerates, and therefore should be equally understandable to politicians. Here's hoping.

Mr. Mojo said...

I am a man-made global warming sceptic, not for political reasons, but purely because I am sceptical of any statement until proven/disproven true.
I am also a molecular biologist with 4 semesters of grad school in microbiology. I am aware that it does not fully qualify me to criticize the experiments in the field of phytophysiology, but I would like to make a point on the scientific method in general.

The first flaw that comes to mind after watching this short video is the experiment design. I am not sure whether CO2 is the limiting factor for growth in the nature, but it is obvious that in this particular experiment it was. What would happen with the excess CO2 if the limiting factor was something else, like other gasses (eg. nitrogen) or minerals? Or maybe even other organisms which help utilize nitrogen? Definitely not all excess CO2 would/could be incorporated into the plant biomass.

Just a thought and a friendly warning not to take data at face value.

Captain Ranty said...

Mr Mojo,

Thank you for that. I wasn't a man-made global warming sceptic either, until I discovered the cruelties visited upon the second hand smoke "science". Now I pretty much distrust all scientists. Wrong, I know, but until I see the return of integrity, it will have to stay that way.

So my short evaluation of this film may be over simplified, but if his data are correct then it tells me that CO2 is not the boogeyman the warmists make it out to be. His experiments weren't all that rigorous and we could sit here and take them apart if we wished. I liked the simplicity and the results, and I agree that it may not have the same effect in the real world. I agree that the plants can only "ingest" so much CO2 and the rest has to go elsewhere. I further agree that there may have been some unique chemicals (that went unmeasured) in his exhaled breaths.

The danger, I think, is when lunatics with a vested interest start arsing about with the planet. I recall some park rangers in one of the USA's wildlife parks/nature reserves deciding to kill off a moss that grew on one particular tree. What they didn't know was that it was a symbiotic relationship, and that the tree "tolerated" the moss because it attracted deer. The deer ate the moss, and left their scat around the base of the tree. The scat helped with new plant growth (which the tree was happy about) and helped to fertilise the trees seeds. So, no moss. The park rangers got rid of it. The deer stopped coming around, and within a short time, the trees died. The area where they eradicated the moss is a now a mini-wasteland.

Some things should just be left alone. We don't appear to understand a lot of the complexities involved. Until we do, or until we trust the science again, it wouldn't harm us to hit the pause button.

CR.

Griblett said...

@PA

At the risk of being accused of wearing bacofoil;

I think you are looking at it from the wrong end. The fact that CO2 is beneficial to plant growth is well known.

Now, walk through a scenario where the level of CO2 is being constrained artificially by government decision based on mis-leading science.

Add in global cooling and the possibility of an overdue LIA/Maunder(esque) Minimum.

Answer four very simple questions;

1. What is the political leaning of every eco, green organisation?

2. What do all these organisations identify as the cause of the Earths woes?

3. Which kills more crops, cold or warm?

4. Which kills more people, cold or warm?

CO2 is very inconvenient if you want to usher in a new world order, is it not?

Captain Ranty said...

Thank you Mr Griblett.

I had considered that but I am having trouble with the depopulation theory.

I know that the current/former/future crop of MPs are/were greedy, greedy bastards. The ruling elite are greedy, greedy bastards.

They need more of us, not less, if they are to enjoy year-on-year profit growth.

More people = more tax, more fines, more sales.

I don't see how a lower global population helps them to trouser massive wads of cash.

So I do understand your point, but I am a people-culling sceptic!

(For now, anyway).

CR.

Griblett said...

Dammit Mojo!

I hate it when an elegant theory gets destroyed by ugly facts.
(Copyright Jones, Mann, Briffa and Gore)

Ok Captain,

You're probably right.

However...

I think (for some) it would be very convenient if at least half of the worlds population succumbed.

Watching said...

When are these going to be taxed out of existence?
http://www.taylorsgardenbuildings.co.uk/store/customer/product.php?productid=22049

Or these?
http://www.strictlypetsupplies.com/_730773510108-Red-Sea-Co2-Bio-Generator-Kit

No matter which way it's cut there is something more than dodgy science at work in Hoaxanhagen.

Captain Ranty said...

You may be right Watching, but we are already the scum of the earth for daring to suggest that they have financial motives or that they are mentally unbalanced. If we actually said that we suspected a hidden agenda, they would explode with righteous anger.

Incidentally, I just got a spam email. Apparently I am rich, but what caught my eye was the chaps name:


DR.ATIKUWQRTQBELLO

Is that not the best spammy name ever??

CR.

Watching said...

Here is a closed mind from another blog I run
I trust all of you who refuse to accept climate change have a PhD in a relevant field, such as Paleoclimatology?
Honestly, if you're going to be a skeptic then ask yourself why, because the overwhelming majority of scientific research points towards the facts that 1) the Earth IS getting warmer and 2) The emission of toxic gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides -all of which are emitted into the atmosphere whenever you run your car- is damaging to the environment and most likely is contributing to, if not the cause of, global warming. It's really not rocket science and if you choose to disagree, then you are entitled to do so, but by broadcasting your propaganda, you are preventing the advancement of our society into the modern age.
And although I disagree with the manipulation of scientific data (the verdict still isn't out yet. So far we have leaked emails which aren't fully understood by many, may be taken out of context or presented in a Bias by skeptics. I will be truly disappointed if the accusations are true, but I'm holding out before I decide), I agree with some of the points brought across in the link, especially the fact that the ignorant who choose to oppose new ideas without a sufficient understanding of the subject are extremely hard to educate because of their attitudes. There really wasn't any scandal in the link. It seems to me to be a guideline for communicating the idea of climate change so that people with no knowledge of the subject will understand it as something negative -and it is something negative. If anything Derek, you are as, if not more guilty of Bias than those who made the leaflet.
Since it has been mentioned already, I should clear this; we are not merely entering a warm period in a natural cycle of the Earth. Previous fluctuations were the result of variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and there have been none of these recently. Sun spots only have minor implications on our climate and are not the cause of warming. You should also consider that previous cycles of warming and cooling took place over a much longer timescale.
I feel confident in saying that if you oppose the idea of the prevention of global warming, then you really do not understand the concept of the science behind it (forgive me if I'm wrong) and are unable to see the wider implications of maintaining a hydrocarbon-dependent economy in a time when oil stores are showing signs of decline and are held by some of the most politically unstable countries in the world.

Captain Ranty said...

Now that first line would have me incensed to begin with. It's that classic appeal to authority.

But when you look closely at the peeps with PhD's, you quickly find that they sold their souls, their honesty, and their integrity for 30 pieces of silver.

Their opinions don't get formed using science, they are bought and paid for.

If he/she remains unconvinced having read those "hide the decline" emails, then we have a nutjob on our hands here. This loony would have been a witch-burner in days of yore.

CR.

Watching said...

Go get him Captain, if you are so inclined. I've given up.
http://www.furnessacademy.com/2009/12/climategate-caught-green-handed.html#comment-1319

ScotA Dave Allison said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA

Posted that vid on my local Transition Towns forum.

:>)

Captain Ranty said...

Good stuff Dave!

Do you think it will learn them anything? Some brains are hard to penetrate...

CR.

Redintheface said...

@Watching - Does the fact that every planet in our solar system is undergoing global warming to within 10% of our own owe its existence to humans and/or CO2? (NASA proved this solar system warming in 2004 with photos of each planet compared with those taken in 1984).

This bigger the lie, the more the people will believe it.