The creationists are out in force, upset that some people believe more in global warming than in their little godly boom-boom neat concept of six days universe construction. But they are also quite upset that an earthly theory is possibly walking on their turf of brainwashing...

So, these creationistos come out with massive amounts of disinformation that would make Andrew Bolt proud. For the overseas readers who don't know who Andrew Bolt is, I will say he is an Australian equivalent to a taller thinner Rush Limbaugh, with more rabid conservative subtlety — as Andrew rarely raise his voice. His writings though are acidic against anything that has a sniff of social equity and dangerously alkaline against anything that has a smudge of global warming. Bolt is quietly deliriously full of his own cultivated importance. 

But the creationistzzz and evangelicals are out to promote their fully DISHONEST views in Christian journals. They are entitled to such views as much as I am entitled to run a scientific yellow bulldozer through their flimsy arguments and misrepresentation of facts.
Some of these creatioooonists are not full-blown creeeeationist loonies. Some just endorse the biblical creation — as god made the universe in a quiet hurry, fixing His (god is a He) mistakes on the hop — and then smile, because smiling is a clear window into honesty. I've seen snake-oil merchants smile with more vigour that these grand fibbers. But these religious evangelicus fanaticus also make sure you know they have a PhD (self-appointed in Theological Creationism, I suppose) attached to their names, something old Gus cannot do. All I can do is claim a Fictitious Wisdom Diploma from the Old Wisecracker Street University of Hard Knocks (FWDftOWSTUoHK). 
But this is irrelevant. What is relevant is the bullshit that these guys (they are "American guys" as opposed to Ken Ham, of the Noah-Ark fame, who is a bloke since he is Australian) roll forward to construct a pile of bigger mega-shit misinformation. 
Suddenly sadly the Catholic Pope and his bishops are in error, because these creation-people are in the camp of the only true believers attached to the only true evangelical tinselled rah-rah, because they also have a few "scientists" in their midst. The first rule of science is that it is incompatible with religious dictums. Science is inquisitive while religion is a dogma.
These idiots (my apologies to the natural imbeciles) start with the grand old furphy — which would only capture an audience of monkeys with an IQ below 67 (quite intelligent for chimps, mind you) — in regard to the non-toxicity of CO2. For this alone, their hard-laboured PhDs should be taken away.
Here, Calvin Beisner goes:

First, carbon dioxide is not toxic at any concentration. It is essential to all life, plants growing better and hence making more food for all animals, including man (the poor benefiting the most), at higher concentrations than lower, and animals needing it to regulate respiration.

It becomes dangerous at high concentrations, not because it is toxic (poisonous) but because it robs us of enough oxygen to support brain function. If that's what it means to be "toxic," pillows are — for, wrapped tightly around our heads, they, too, can suffocate us.

 

This idiot tells a massive unrelated concoction, for the glory of godot, unless Beisner is completely imbecilic, which I doubt. But as you know, all these Kreationistasios believe in the superiority of "man". Read: "including man (the poor benefiting the most)". Women are often excluded from their propositions. Here also, I have no idea why the mention of the "poor benefiting most" from CO2, is made... Is it because the poor bastards burn wood in third world countries for cooking? 

Anyway, NO-ONE, especially scientists, is ever saying that CO2 is not essential to life on earth.

What is said in regard to global warming is that small quantities of CO2 added to the atmosphere change the characteristic of such atmosphere, ever so slightly or even more. No toxicity is involved. Talking of "toxicity" in relation to global warming is a con-trick that is deplorably deceitful. The creationist here is completely hypocritical, taking you a a pathway which is irrelevant and despicably dishonest.

 

Another idiot (apologies to morons), Jerry Newcombe, makes another dubious claim: 

 

Consider this quote from climate alarmists: "There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production, with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively, that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change or even to allay its effects. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality."

That quote is from Newsweek magazine, April 28, 1975, and they were talking about global cooling. Common sense should give us pause here. 40 years ago the earth was supposedly cooling so fast, global cooling was going to kill us. Now the earth is warming so fast that global warming is going to kill us?

Here Gus tells you we have to consider some very relevant facts, which of course were not considered by the inconsiderate Kreashunist: 

A) Newsweek is not a scientific journal.

B) by 1975, the consensus that the planet was "cooling" had been recently (at least 30 years earlier) debunked, but knowledge was slow moving. The short cut explanation is that according to earlier serious (not fantasist) scientific analysis of the ice age record (including the Milankovitch cycles), the planet should be going towards an ice age. Boom. This interesting conundrum has been explained at length on this site. By 1959, some fantasist futurist "scientists" and engineers were planning a gigantic dam between Newfoundland and Norway to stop the advance of the ice "from the incoming ice age" — a dam that could be finished by 1984, as a counterpoint to George Orwell's (see prediction 1959: self-driving cars and fishy walls by 1984...)

. 

C) the distance between scientific journals and the stupid popular press (MMMM — mediocre mass media de mierda) is often staggering. Some journalists and reporters will write any old crap based on erroneous scientific past views (corrected by at least 1945 — it happens that science improves, unlike religion which wades in the same crappy mud-bath since Adam and Eve first ever fucup). Pen-pushers "Kolumists" in order to be "alarmist" and "controversialist", including someone like Andrew Bolt, will drag their feet in the opposite direction, be an enormous dead weight on the future of this planet, or be 50 years in arrears.

D) the major hypothesis of global warming had been proposed by Sven Arrhenius in 1897. But like all scientific theories, it takes time to be verified and/or rejected. He had his detractors even back then. Arrhenius' calculations still stand. 

E) the observations of the earthly temperatures of the past 100 years, including that of oceans, have shown that the surface of the planet is warming up fast in geological timeframe — faster than global warming computer model predictions in fact (contrary to the claims made by the rabid Kreationeestos). Increase of temperature were predicted by Arrhenius in accordance with increase of INDUSTRIALLY produced CO 2. 

F) The surface of the earth IS NOT COOLING as it should be (very slowly) "with normal conditions". Something is warming the planet more that it should. After discounting all natural effects from the sun, the Milakovitch cycles and other average stuff like volcanic activity — the observations show that the gaseous composition of the atmosphere is the culprit.

G) the atmosphere was shown in 1824 by Joseph Fourier to be an important insulation blanket. The term glasshouse was coined but is wrong in this complex system though there is no controversy in explaining that the thin (very thin) layer of atmosphere is protecting the surface of the earth from major temperature fluctuations. Similar processes happen on other planets, with variations due to their own gaseous mix.

H) the gaseous composition of the atmosphere is crucial in maintaining the "average" temperature and the oscillation bracketing of diurnal and nocturnal temperature on earth, within climatic banding. Back in 1897, Arrhenius calculated the influence of CO2 on the temperature behaviour of the atmosphere. For the time, his calculations were staggeringly accurate. He could deduct the changing proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere during Ice Ages and warmer climes. 

I) the observed geological record match with high precision what Arrhenius calculated, INDEPENDENTLY. For the last million years of so, the atmospheric gaseous mix has not changed much, except for the CO2 variation between 180 and 300 ppm, WHICH WAS OBSERVED TO CORRELATE TO COOL AND WARM PERIODS. The difference between 180 ppm and 300 ppm of CO2 is a simple averaged 10 degrees C ± 1 or 2 degrees C for the surface of the planet. Other factors such as particles from volcanic activity account for small variability.

J) CO2 is NOT TOXIC to the planet in the atmospheric concentrations scientists are studying. But these concentration variations indicate the influence CO2 on the atmospheric conditions. 

K) CO2 natural variability between oceans, life (flora and fauna) and atmosphere has balanced between 180 and 300 ppm for the last million years (I know you still believe god made the place in 4,004 BC, go away...). 

L) Since the "industrial revolution", humans have created GREAT materialist comforts by burning FOSSIL fuels (coal, gas, oil). This burning is adding to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans. Presently we have reached 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. This EXTRA CO2 is adding extra warming to the surface of the planet for years to come, INCLUDING WAY BEYOND 2100. AND WE ARE ADDING MORE EXTRA CO2 DAILY. 

M) addition of CO2 (extra CO2 from burning fossil fuels) raises the temperature of the atmosphere in calculable average (bracketed due to other factors and variability of time-delay). Observations are showing that this is happening: MELTING OF GLACIERS, INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE, SMALL CHANGES IN CLIMATIC BANDING.

N) apart from a notable increase in oceanic temperature, addition of CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans. This is measured and recorded as evidence, through laboratory experiments, coral bleaching included.

P) Creationists, religious persons, coal and oil merchants who are opposed to the reduction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are dangerous lunatics. Most of you people are intelligent but you become moronic because YOU HAVE TO SELL something FOR PROFIT, be it salvation, coal, oil or gas, under the guise of providing comforts. YOU ARE despicable idiots who use every deceitful trick in the book of Fib and conjure deriding falsehoods like:

"human emissions of carbon dioxide probably add not just some unspecifiable amount of warmth to the atmosphere but enough warmth, rapidly enough, to threaten grave harm, justifying the extremely costly policies the bishops advise, is by no means "reliable." Indeed, it's not even evidence."

The "unspecifiable amount of warmth" is actually calculable (bracketed figures) in accordance with the geological record, present observations and Arrhenius calculations (improved and verified since then). The lowest figure of "unspecifiable" amount of extra warmth of 2 degrees by 2100 is used in the present Paris Agreement. This in itself is VERY conservative. The science of global warming is more than reliable. It is accurate though conservatively tweaked.

Q) The other kkkreationoshmtuer concludes: "In short, it would seem to me that the real goals of the climate alarmist elites are this: Power and control. Indeed, we need very tall boots to wade through all the malarkey."

Cripes!!! Talk about the malarkey of religious shit !!! Talk about the kontroll, the Powerr of the Religious fanatical armies !!!! Talk about the mind pollution from biblical proportion !!!!!! We need the Cat-in-Boots boots to wade through this deep biblical krap.

Yet we know where you're coming from... YOU ARE MORE INTERESTED IN UBER MATERIALISM RATHER THAN IN SPIRITUAL DETACHED ELEVATION. 

SHAME ON YOU.

 

 

Gus Leonisky, FWDftOWSTUoHK

your local global warming expert.