An important documentary by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin was released today which exposes climate alarmism as an invented scare without any basis in science.
Going to be hard but I think I’m going to have to admit my dad was right. He’s been a long time “denier”. I do wonder why big oil and coal let this happen also other companies that will lose out if people buy less.
I am not sure Big Oil or other big corporatist players stand to lose anything. It is interesting to look who is behind those big projects that supposedly catch CO2 from the air to store it somewhere or make stones out of it etc. Take a project called Northern Lights from Norway as an example: "Northern Lights was incorporated in March 2021 as a partnership between Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies" (https://norlights.com/who-we-are/). They get taxpayer support of course. As do projects in the US - just last year US awarded 1.2 billion to 2 direct air capture projects. One is owned by Occidental Petroleum and the other one by Climeworks partly backed by Gates: https://www.freedom-research.org/i/136217809/us-hands-out-billions-to-climate-companies-bill-gates-among-the-beneficiaries And as there are a lot more subsidies planned, other big oil companies are also waiting to be financed. Exxon for example seems very enthusiastic: about their project https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/direct-air-capture-technology Somewhat ironic, isn't it?
I thought this was a very poor film. A few talking heads with sound bites with cherry picked data. When I came to the piece with Willie Soon I stopped watching any more. I have heard him say complete nonsense that more CO2 means more life. He is part of a foundation funded by oil and coal producers, but there is not mention of this in the film, despite being a clear conflict of interest. Scientific opinion may have a consensus in opposition to the views of this film, but is massively outweighed by commercial interests of the petroleum and coal industries who can ensure nothing significantly affects their profits
Ian, thank you for for your continued sharp comments! I think you should be more exact on that 'cherry picked data' you refer to. Then we could maybe discuss it. And are you referring to the claim that 99% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming when you talk about the consensus? I do not know if you are aware of that but this claim is based on a flawed research paper.
We KNOW that current CO2 levels are close to the minimum level required by plants to use sunlight to produce simple carbohydrate molecules, the basic fuels for all life on earth.
We KNOW that stomata behaviour changes with level of CO2, opening for much longer to let it in and losing water during the exchange.
Long story short, higher gas concentration lets more into cell in less time and less water is lost and now the deserts are blooming while the cultivated food crops are gaining much higher yields in the same time under the same circumstances.
You are quite likely just as ignorant of the basic science behind the rest of the valid assertions in the film and falling back on conspiracy theories is no evidence at all.
OOOH! Abuse, and writing in capitals as well. A sure sign of someone who must be right. Still, I am heartened to hear that the funders of Soon’s institution (oil and gas companies) are helping us all by turbocharging the plants. We must be grateful that the deserts are blooming, although I had noticed any blooming in the many deserts I have visited over the last decade or so, but I look forward to the triffids surging out of the Sahara.
(FYI the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentrations on plant physiology are mixed. Protein and some micronutrientss concentrations decline and carbohydrates increase.
Give us the details of your unsupported assumptions.
Mockery is not argument from data, just diversionary from lack of it.
Tackle the carbon dioxide absorption/emission spectrometry for us and show how it will cause global boiling.
Let us know about the C3, C4 and CAM pathways and the likely cause of their development if it was not adaptation to enormous fluctuations in carbon dioxide over the millions of years since photosynthesis began.
"Give us the details of your unsupported assumptions"
"Mockery is not argument from data.....",
as is abuse
"Tackle the carbon dioxide absorption/emission spectrometry for us and show how it will cause global boiling".
Did I mention global boiling? Erecting a straw man?
"Let us know about the C3, C4 and CAM pathways and the likely cause of their development if it was not adaptation to enormous fluctuations in carbon dioxide over the millions of years since photosynthesis began."
Read the reference. Almost any argument can be supported by selective use of historical data. Each climate era will have a unique set of circumstances, just as the current one and may evolve differently to the past with similar initial starting conditions.
At least you have managed to write a post without capitals and abuse - keep it up!
Going to be hard but I think I’m going to have to admit my dad was right. He’s been a long time “denier”. I do wonder why big oil and coal let this happen also other companies that will lose out if people buy less.
I am not sure Big Oil or other big corporatist players stand to lose anything. It is interesting to look who is behind those big projects that supposedly catch CO2 from the air to store it somewhere or make stones out of it etc. Take a project called Northern Lights from Norway as an example: "Northern Lights was incorporated in March 2021 as a partnership between Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies" (https://norlights.com/who-we-are/). They get taxpayer support of course. As do projects in the US - just last year US awarded 1.2 billion to 2 direct air capture projects. One is owned by Occidental Petroleum and the other one by Climeworks partly backed by Gates: https://www.freedom-research.org/i/136217809/us-hands-out-billions-to-climate-companies-bill-gates-among-the-beneficiaries And as there are a lot more subsidies planned, other big oil companies are also waiting to be financed. Exxon for example seems very enthusiastic: about their project https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/direct-air-capture-technology Somewhat ironic, isn't it?
I thought this was a very poor film. A few talking heads with sound bites with cherry picked data. When I came to the piece with Willie Soon I stopped watching any more. I have heard him say complete nonsense that more CO2 means more life. He is part of a foundation funded by oil and coal producers, but there is not mention of this in the film, despite being a clear conflict of interest. Scientific opinion may have a consensus in opposition to the views of this film, but is massively outweighed by commercial interests of the petroleum and coal industries who can ensure nothing significantly affects their profits
Ian, thank you for for your continued sharp comments! I think you should be more exact on that 'cherry picked data' you refer to. Then we could maybe discuss it. And are you referring to the claim that 99% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming when you talk about the consensus? I do not know if you are aware of that but this claim is based on a flawed research paper.
Willie Soon is exactly correct.
We KNOW that current CO2 levels are close to the minimum level required by plants to use sunlight to produce simple carbohydrate molecules, the basic fuels for all life on earth.
We KNOW that stomata behaviour changes with level of CO2, opening for much longer to let it in and losing water during the exchange.
Long story short, higher gas concentration lets more into cell in less time and less water is lost and now the deserts are blooming while the cultivated food crops are gaining much higher yields in the same time under the same circumstances.
You are quite likely just as ignorant of the basic science behind the rest of the valid assertions in the film and falling back on conspiracy theories is no evidence at all.
OOOH! Abuse, and writing in capitals as well. A sure sign of someone who must be right. Still, I am heartened to hear that the funders of Soon’s institution (oil and gas companies) are helping us all by turbocharging the plants. We must be grateful that the deserts are blooming, although I had noticed any blooming in the many deserts I have visited over the last decade or so, but I look forward to the triffids surging out of the Sahara.
(FYI the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentrations on plant physiology are mixed. Protein and some micronutrientss concentrations decline and carbohydrates increase.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
Give us the details of your unsupported assumptions.
Mockery is not argument from data, just diversionary from lack of it.
Tackle the carbon dioxide absorption/emission spectrometry for us and show how it will cause global boiling.
Let us know about the C3, C4 and CAM pathways and the likely cause of their development if it was not adaptation to enormous fluctuations in carbon dioxide over the millions of years since photosynthesis began.
"Give us the details of your unsupported assumptions"
"Mockery is not argument from data.....",
as is abuse
"Tackle the carbon dioxide absorption/emission spectrometry for us and show how it will cause global boiling".
Did I mention global boiling? Erecting a straw man?
"Let us know about the C3, C4 and CAM pathways and the likely cause of their development if it was not adaptation to enormous fluctuations in carbon dioxide over the millions of years since photosynthesis began."
Read the reference. Almost any argument can be supported by selective use of historical data. Each climate era will have a unique set of circumstances, just as the current one and may evolve differently to the past with similar initial starting conditions.
At least you have managed to write a post without capitals and abuse - keep it up!