From: Frank Gue
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Weather
I watched the Geoengineering video again.
The massiveness of the global conspiracy needed to account for this geoengineering process leaves one gasping.
And yet, and yet.
The well documented, well proven global suppression by the Main Stream Media of climate change skeptics leaves one quite sure that, once a mass hysteria has taken hold, no amount of contrary opinion will come to the surface. Remember the 1700s Tulip Bubble? The South Sea Island bubble? The Dot-Com bubble? The subprime mortgage bubble? (I was one of the lone voices warning about this last one, which I did and got published in 2007, a year before 2008 hit.) In each of these episodes, a few simple questions (such as: How could a single tulip bulb be worth thousands of dollars as apparently some were in 1750 or-whenever-it-was?) would have burst the bubble before it got dangerous.
I want to see a scientific, quantified, documented inquiry by someone like the AAS published in a reputable journal like the AMA or the CDC, framed as a proper experiment (you know, the question, the apparatus, the procedure, etc.) that gets a credible answer to an unambiguous question – not a long series of flat statements such as in this video, persuasive as it is.
Example of one reason for my skepticism on all of these fire alarms is this: CO2 is not a noxious gas. It is a vital component of all life, including ours. We all live on plant matter or derivatives of plant matter, such as meat. All plant matter lives by converting CO2, water, micronutrients and sunlight to available nutrients like sugar, C12H22O11. We don’t know how it is done with such incredible efficiency.
The Earth has gone thru any number of warm-cold cycles. During one of them, a warm high-CO2 cycle that lasted hundreds of millions of years, there grew the biggest by far land animals that ever existed: the dinosaurs. Has anyone done a nutritional cycle budget that asks: How many of these huge animals were there? What was their calorific demand upon the Earth? How was that demand met? How did it compare with today’s calorific demands? Was there a correlation between it and global temperature and/or CO2 concentration?
For that matter, Ontario has gone through at least six changes from warm-to-cool-to-warm in the last 5,000 years. There is about 20 ft of overburden above slate here at this location. The first five feet are displayed in any excavation that leaves a sheer, undisturbed vertical exposure. This exposure is clearly in strata that vary from pebbles (fairly fast moving melt water) to silt (dammed cold water not moving at all, i.e. under a quiet lake). See the picture below. Extrapolating heroically, I suggest that my five feet represents one quarter of the 20,000 years since the ice retreated, and that there may have been 24 warm-cool cycles here during that time. Ergo, the historical warm-cool cycles (such as the “Little Ice Age” that ended in the 1890s, or the “Medieval Warm Spell” that gave rise to centuries of human productivity that enabled the construction of massive cathedrals and Viking farming in Greenland) were and are perfectly natural and predictable phenomena.
Climate change? You bet. The climate is changing because the climate is always changing. CO2 has yet to be proven the culprit, much less our blame for it. I remain a conscientious scientific skeptic. After all, Gary, we are Bachelors of Science, aren’t we?