“A Graph to Debunk AGW”

By 38 Comments 603 views

New CO2 report! Expect the mainstream media to begin their chorus of impending doom and gloom now that the latest annual global CO2 report has been released.

Warmist energy and climate website CO2-Handel reports here that once again global CO2 emissions have increased, reaching a record level in 2012!  Yet CO2 Handel forgets to tell us that global temperature hasn’t risen in almost 15 years:


Atmospheric CO2 has been rising for years, but global temps are going in the opposite direction! Source: woodfortrees.org (Straight lines drawn in by hand by NTZ).

According to an annual report prepared by the EU Commission and Dutch PBL research organization, man pumped another 34 billion tons of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere.  The report was made public in Italy yesterday.

The report says China now produces as much CO2 per capita as Europe. Globally, CO2 emissions in 2011 were 3% higher, despite Europe and USA cutting their emissions 3% and 2% respectively (due in large part to the relatively warm winter and the global economic crisis).

Emissions in China, however, surged 9% primarily due to growing steel and cement production. India’s emissions jumped 6%. And because these countries are a long way from being optimally developed, even greater CO2 emissions there and in the other developing countries are inevitable. Don’t expect CO2 to be curbed anytime soon.

CO2 Handel also writes:

But the experts see a shimmer of hope: The share of renewable energy foremost sun, wind and biomass in energy production has quadrupled between 1992 and 2011.”

But at what cost, and has it stopped CO2 emissions?

And looking at the above temperature chart, why would anyone even want to curb CO2 emissions? The sooner we get to 500 ppm, the better. At that point, today’s developing countries will have reached a standard of living that is humane.

Read more

Filed under Uncategorized

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

38 Responses to ““A Graph to Debunk AGW””

  1. 26

    Joe

    I submit 3 questions to those who believe in AGW.

    1. How can there be AGW when the average temp. today is lower than it was about 1000 years, 2000, and many other times in the past?

    2. Do any of you know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

    3. What is the percentage of that CO2 concentration contributed by man and his activities.

  2. 28

    johngalt

    @Greg:

    You were already trying to compare apples to oranges, Greg. Now you introduce a potato into the mix.

    More proof that AGW zealots will use any “data” present to spin their way into believing the “sky is falling”.

  3. 29

    Greg

    @Aqua, #27:

    CERN has NOT said that The Sun, not Man, Causes Climate Change. That is NOT what Jasper Kirkby, the CERN scientist heading the CLOUD project, has concluded or said, either.

    The statement is nothing more than the title of an article by Kevin Hayden. He’s expressing his own opinions, not CERN’s.

  4. 30

    Greg

    @johngalt:

    More proof that AGW zealots will use any “data” present to spin their way into believing the “sky is falling”.

    What should people conclude from the graph at the top of the page–which, as is pointed out in Post #4, can be seen to be a deliberate deception by anyone who takes a moment to examine it closely?

    What’s the deal with the unanimous thumbs down votes on posts here that are nothing more than statements of easily verifiable facts?

    It seems to me that nearly all of the spin and disinformation has been coming from climate change deniers, who have been doing everything in their power to confuse the public on one of the most important issues of the early 21st Century.

    Scientific American: Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

  5. 31

    Randy

    @Greg: As long as you live Greg, you will never get it! The papers you quote are not facts, they are hypothesis that were developed using again computer models. What do you not understand about the scientific process? Were you sleeping in 9 th grade science class. The skeptics are attacking the processes that the silly AGWalarmists use and portray as scientific fact. Read the papers you quote, not just the big headlines and the photos. Maybe you will learn something.

  6. 32

    Greg

    The graph at the top of the page is indefensible. Totally bogus. A propaganda tool. A lie. A deliberate deception. And a clumsy one, too. Anyone can see that. (Except, maybe, for people who actually were baffled by 9th grade science class.) You should roll it up and hide it somewhere, before it becomes an even bigger embarrassment. I’ve got nothing more to say about the silly thing.

  7. 33

    Mr. Irons

    And this is why Greg you are viewed as a moron here.

    That graph comes from constant real testing, not the bunk you keep trying to shove as facts. “Try again, Bragg.”

  8. 35

    Mr. Irons

    Bahahaha, it “stands” when the data and references behind it have been found to be bunk and manipulated data? Are you really this stupid?

  9. 36

    johngalt

    @Greg:

    It seems to me that nearly all of the spin and disinformation has been coming from climate change deniers, who have been doing everything in their power to confuse the public on one of the most important issues of the early 21st Century.

    So, requesting truth and adherence to science, instead of hypotheses supported by faulty data, is spin, or disinformation?

    Confuse the public? You mean like changing the name of the junk science you support from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, due to the number of data points that question, or disprove, the AGW zealots’ hypotheses?

    Interesting, Greg. You accuse the ‘deniers’ of doing exactly as the AGW zealots have done since the 90’s.

  10. 37

    Aqua

    @Greg:
    Whatever helps you sleep at night Greg. When they first released their results, the Gaia worshipers lost their minds.
    Dr. Kirkby said the debate was too polarized. I agree with him. I want the science to play out, you and the other climate change alarmists just want to say “they science is settled.” It is not.
    Some of the GPS equipment my department uses is subject to solar flares, specifically CMEs. As a result, I look at SolarHam every day. http://www.solarham.net/
    The last CME, NASA’s GISS got the information so wrong it was pathetic. That’s the reason I use SolarHam, they have no climate change stance, just information. You should check it out sometime and see just what happens with the weather when the sun throws a fit.

  11. 38

    Greg

    @Aqua, #37:

    That looks like an excellent site for solar info. I bookmarked it. Thanks. I often wonder what’s up with periodic variations in radio reception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *