Search
Recent comments
- murdered by trump....
1 hour 5 min ago - peace?.....
1 hour 54 min ago - coincidences....
2 hours 8 min ago - destroying libya...
2 hours 19 min ago - dying....
8 hours 27 min ago - trump plays europe....
9 hours 11 min ago - genocide
9 hours 37 min ago - losses....
10 hours 12 min ago - EU admissions....
10 hours 26 min ago - democratically....
10 hours 48 min ago
Democracy Links
Member's Off-site Blogs
placing your head inside a microwave oven won't kill you....
BREATHING THE AIR INSIDE A MICROWAVE OVEN ISN'T GOING TO KILL YOU... BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CLOSE THE DOOR... SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CLOSE THE DOOR AND TURN THE MACHINE ON, YOU WILL BOIL TO DEATH... THIS IS WHAT MANY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. DENIALISTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE THUS DANGEROUS...
THE "TINY" QUANTITY OF CO2 AFFECTED BY SPECIFIC SOLAR WAVELENGTH EMISSIONS — LIKE WATER IS IN A MICROWAVE OVEN [SAY PLACE A METAL SPOON INSIDE THE BLITHER AND IT COULD "EXPLODE"] — IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF CLIMATIC CONDITIONS IN THE EVOLVING DYNAMICS OF THE PLANET THAT INCLUDE THE VARIATIONS OF THE MILANKOVICH CYCLES.
HERE FOLLOWS A TON OF FAULTY ARGUMENTS IN A DENIALIST ARTICLE BY SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING...
WE CAN SAY WITH 99.9 PER CENT CONFIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES INDUCED [BURNING FOSSIL FUELS], LIKE SAY BEFORE OIL, GAS AND COAL GOT SEQUESTERED BY GEOPALEO EVENTS AS TOO MUCH SURFACE (MOSTLY ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC) CARBON LED TO RISING TEMPERATURES, RISING SEA LEVELS — FOLLOWED BY A SOMEWHAT "CATASTROPHIC" "CORRECTION"...
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING PLEASE SEE: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/33287
MEANWHILE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE LUDICROUS ARGUMENTS THEY USE TO LURE PEOPLE — AS A BASIS FOR THEIR STUPIDITY...
==================
by Serge Van Cutsem
The climate debate has become omnipresent, urgent, moral… but strangely, rarely quantified. CO₂ is invoked without ever mentioning its actual concentration in the air, science is discussed without orders of magnitude, and consensus is invoked to close every question. This text proposes a different approach: to breathe, to count, and to look at the figures before subscribing to the narratives. Not to deny, but to understand. Galileo, Wegener, plate tectonics, the theory of continental drift… all were in the minority in the face of a massive consensus.
Breathing is a simple act, butthinkThe air we breathe is clearly much less so. Yet, every day, we talk with gravity, urgency, and sometimes hysteria about a subject intimately linked to air: climate, CO₂, the atmosphere, the planet, and even the end of the world, now regularly announced. So let's take a step back, take a deep breath… and count seriously. Rest assured, there's nothing conspiratorial here, just the facts.
I start with a little surprise quiz that I've already enjoyed giving to several people, including family members. It's both amusing and, above all, very revealing. To the question, "What is the main gas in the Earth's atmosphere?", the most frequent answers are: oxygen (makes sense, we die without it), CO₂ (makes sense, we talk about it all the time), or sometimes "something toxic" (makes sense, given the general mood). The correct answer, however, is nitrogen, about 78%. Silence in the room. Nitrogen? This discreet gas, odorless, colorless, without slogans, without activism, and without subsidies. In short, the one that interests no one precisely because it tells us nothing.
Yes, but what about oxygen? Ah, oxygen… the hero, the lifeblood, the one we breathe, the one we learn about in school, the one we associate with life, lungs, sports, and health. So much so that in movies and TV shows, not a single diver appears without a tank—or a cylinder—of oxygen strapped to their back. No, it's just air, because if they descended below the surface with pure oxygen, they would end up in convulsions or a coma long before they'd even seen a single fish. Oxygen makes up about 21% of the air. It's not the main gas in the atmosphere, far from it, but it's obviously the one without which we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Nature loves these kinds of cruel jokes: the most vital isn't the majority, the most abundant is perfectly invisible to our awareness.
And what about the infamous CO₂? Dramatic entrance, somber music, anxiety-inducing voiceover. And yet, CO₂ represents approximately 0,04% of the atmosphere. On a pie chart, it would barely be a line. Yes, 0.04. At this point, some readers have already tuned out or are desperately clinging to the narrative: "The percentage doesn't matter, it's the effect that counts." Honest translation: I prefer the narrative to the actual order of magnitude.
This is a true, and slightly chilling, anecdote, as it's based on personal experience: it's not uncommon to hear that CO₂ makes up 10% of the air, that it's almost as abundant as oxygen, or that it's as high as 20%. At 20% CO₂, rest assured: there's no need for an ecological transition, no need for debates or international summits. We would all have been dead for a long time, and the problem would have resolved itself, in a definitive silence and with perfect carbon neutrality.
So, what's going on in people's minds? Nothing extraordinary. Just perfectly human cognitive biases. The brain works like this: what's vital must be the majority, what's hammered home must be enormous, and what's frightening must be massive in quantity. But oxygen is vital but a minority, CO₂ is omnipresent in discourse but infinitesimal in the air, and nitrogen is dominant but boring, because it doesn't bother anyone. The result: physical and scientific reality loses to the emotional narrative, not to mention the infamous "consensus," that magic word that cuts short any attempt at debate.
Throughout all of this, the media's role is subtle, but remarkably effective. They never say that CO₂ makes up 20% of the atmosphere. No, they do much better. They talk about "massive emissions," the "dominant gas of global warming," an "absolute emergency," and a "tipping point." But they never mention the proportions. This is what you might call disinformation by quantitative omission: they don't lie, they simply avoid counting.
One last reminder, which can sometimes be unsettling. Before the industrial era, CO₂ made up about 0,028% of the atmosphere. Today, it's around 0,042%. The absolute increase is therefore 0,014 percentage points. The air has thus gone from being 99,972% CO₂-free to 99,958% CO₂-free. It's neither nothing nor everything, but certainly not a monster dominating the atmosphere.
Let us add this further: if a CO₂ concentration of around 0,04% were, on its own, the primary driver of Earth's climate, then the geological periods during which this gas reached levels several times higher than today's should have led to temperatures radically incompatible with the stability of the oceans and the biosphere. Yet the geological record shows, on the contrary, warm but stable climates, abundant life, and the absence of any global thermal runaway. This indicates that CO₂ acts as one parameter among others in a complex climate system, and not as a single control knob.
And let's finally talk about responsibility. Even accepting the prevailing hypothesis that CO₂ is the primary driver of climate change, Europe accounts for less than 8% of global emissions, and France about 1%. In other words, we live in a region of the world that is imposing burdensome, costly, and irreversible policies on itself to correct a tiny fraction of a fraction of a global phenomenon. This warrants, at the very least, a debate based on figures.
The problem isn't talking about climate change and denying everything on principle; the problem is talking about it systematically without any sense of scale or figures. Without figures, science becomes mere storytelling, debate becomes moralistic, and politics becomes dogmatic. When we can no longer count, we believe, and believing is very useful: for instilling fear, guilt, imposing our will, and simplifying a complex world. But belief has never replaced physics and science.
Okay, one last breath before you go. The air you breathe is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 0,04% CO₂. If this simple fact bothers you, it's not a problem with the composition of the atmosphere, it's a problem with your perception of reality. So breathe deeply… but above all, learn to count.
====================
SURE, LEARN TO COUNT:
A FEW MILLIGRAM OF POISON CAN KILL YOU....
A FEW MILLIGRAMM OF ASPIRIN WILL REDUCE YOUR HEADACHE....
0.05 PER CENT OF ALCOHO; IS THE LIMIT FOR YOU TO DRIVE LEGALLY....
TO UNDERSTAND GLOBAL WARMING, PLEASE SEE: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/33287
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
- By Gus Leonisky at 29 Dec 2025 - 10:00am
- Gus Leonisky's blog
- Login or register to post comments
best practices....
THE Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD) is a public policy think-tank registered in Belgrade and New York. Its mission is to provide high-quality, independent analysis and offer innovative, practical recommendations with the aim of
CIRSD is committed to help deepen the understanding of economic, social, environmental, and foreign and security policy choices of different States and organizations.
A UNIQUE PARTNERSHIPCIRSD is an institutional partner of an innovative, first-of-its-kind advisory group jointly established by the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UN SDSN). The President of CIRSD, the CIRSD Board of Advisors, and CIRSD Senior Staff are members of the Columbia University Earth Institute–UN SDSN Advisory Group on International Relations, having been designated “Earth Institute SDSN Senior Advisors.”
OFF-THE-RECORD BRIEFINGSThe goal of this joint initiative is to capitalize on the collective knowledge and experience of renowned scientists and prominent political and diplomatic leaders from different parts of the world. The Advisory Group aims to provide high-level analysis and advice to governments and international organizations on how to manage the transformation to sustainable development in the context of national, regional, and global governance.
This partnership helps create an effective mechanism for the translation of scientific evidence and technical knowledge into progressive yet realistic policy prescriptions, helping to advance the UN 2030 Agenda.
CIRSD President Vuk Jeremić and members of the CIRSD Board of Advisors have also joined the Leadership Council of the UN SDSN. The Leadership Council is composed of internationally-recognized leaders and experts in sustainable development from academia, business, civil society, and the public sector. It offers strategic guidance and scientifically objective research to heads of state and government as well as cabinet ministers from around the world on the importance of implementing the UN 2030 Agenda.
CIRSD organizes tailor-made off-the-record briefings, symposia, and study visits for political and diplomatic leaders, senior officials, corporate business executives and entrepreneurs, philanthropic heads, and other influential decision-makers.
These small, invitation-only events provide valuable insights into global and regional trends covering the full gamut of issues in international relations and sustainable development.
These customized interactive sessions are held throughout the world. Drawing on the extensive experience of CIRSD’s international network and carefully selected guest speakers, these retreat-type events enrich participants’ understanding of global political, economic, and environmental trends.
https://www.cirsd.org/en/about-us/mission
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
aromatics....
GUSNOTE: I FIRST ENCOUNTERED THE CONCEPT OF AROMATICS WHEN I WAS 10 YEARS OLD. I MUST SAY I WAS LESS INTERESTED IN CHEMISTRY THAN IN PARTICLE PHYSICS... BUT I STILL HAVE THE MANY COMPLEX BOOKS ON CHEMISTRY AND PAPERS TO USE AS REFERENCE WHEN IN NEED OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION — THOUGH THE INTERNET IS VERY INFORMATIVE AND MUCH QUICKER.
SO WHY IS THIS ITEM ON THE DISCOVERY AND FURTHER KNOWLEDGE OF BENZENE IN THIS LINE OF COMMENTS?
SOME PEOPLE ARE ENTERPRISING. SOME PEOPLE ARE BEAN COUNTERS. SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE STRUCTURES, EVEN IN THE LEAVES OF PLANTS. SOME PEOPLE ARE SIMPLE BOZOS. BUT OVERALL, HUMANS ARE CURIOUS...
THE DISCOVERY OF BENZENE, BY MICHAEL FARADAY, SOON LED TO THE OIL AND COAL INDUSTRIES BEYOND SIMPLY BURNING THESE. IT LED TO THE CRACKING METHODS AND SYNTHESIS OF STUFF LIKE PLASTICS, ETC... AND UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURE OF LIFE: DNA...
THIS IS THE SIMPLE CONNECTION WITH THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. WE ALREADY HAVE MENTIONED THE STONE AGE, THE BRONZE AGE, THE IRON AGE... AND WE HAVE EXPLORED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED MUCH WITHOUT THE NEXT STEP: STEEL...
AS WE HAVE ALSO ENTERED THE INFORMATION AGE, IN WHICH THE NEXT STEP IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WE SHOULD REFLECT THAT TO SOME EXTEND WE ARE STILL IN THE AGE OF BENZENE, A MOLECULE OUR USAGE OF IT HAS INDIRECTLY INDUCED "OUR" GLOBAL WARMING ERA...
THE INDUSTRIES, THE CORPORATIONS, THE MONEY MARKETS THAT LEACH FROM THESE ENTITIES AND THE POLITICS THAT HAVE MANUFACTURED IDEOLOGIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE WALKED TOGETHER. MIND YOU, POLITICS ARE STILL ANCHORED IN ANTIQUITY IN CONFRONTATION AND WAR, RATHER THAN PHILOSOPHICAL COOPERATION... AT THIS LEVEL WE HAVE BEEN IN THE "AGE OF DECEIT" FOR YONKS... OUR POLITICIANS ARE DINOSAURS TRYING TO EXTINGUISH FIRES AND TO SUPPRESS DISSENT OR TO DESTROY OPPOSITION.
MEANWHILE THE PLANET WARMS UP AS WE DIP INTO THE FOSSIL FUEL SOURCES MORE AND MORE, DESPITE DIRE WARNINGS FROM SERIOUS SCIENTISTS...
==================
HERE WITH A SURPRISING SIMPLE CLARITY, JUDY WU EXPLAINS THE STEPS FROM BENZENE TO DNA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kYMUFzylOs
How benzene changed chemistry forever - with Judy Wu
Benzene has played a significant role in modern science and industry since it was first isolated by Michael Faraday in 1825 - originally from whale oil as a by-product of gas production - here at the Royal Institution.
In this Discourse, Judy Wu explores the discoveries, challenges, and unexpected revelations encountered by chemists who devoted their work to unravelling the mysteries of benzene and its significance.
Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, various chemists presented different models to account for the structure and the extraordinary chemical stability of benzene.
The first part of this talk covers a brief history of Michael Faraday's amazing story and humble beginnings. It also talks about his discovery of benzene, and then how chemists came to understand the structure and reactivity of benzene. The second part addresses the evolution of the definition of aromaticity and the modern research it underpins today.
The term aromaticity, originally linked to the distinctive smell and chemical structure of benzene, has evolved significantly to include many molecules that are not “benzene-like” at all. Judy talks about discoveries that reshaped chemists' understanding of the concept of aromaticity and how this concept is now applied in practical fields of chemistry and technology.
00:00 Introduction
1:16 Michael Faraday’s humble beginnings and journey into science
14:29 How gas lighting led to Faraday's discovery of benzene
18:38 How benzene created purple dyes and petroleum
26:28 The birth of structural chemistry
30:58 How scientific representations guide our thinking
35:42 What makes benzene so special chemically?
39:57 Modern research using aromaticity - DNA mutations
42:27 How Kathleen Lonsdale proved the structure of Benzene
47:53 Why kind supporters are vital for scientific discovery
Find out more about Kathleen Lonsdale and her work here: • How one woman solved the 200-year old myst...
---
In 2025 we’re celebrating 200 years of the CHRISTMAS LECTURES and Ri Discourses – both landmark moments in the Ri’s rich history of engaging public audiences with science – as well as the discovery of benzene. Join us throughout 2025 to explore the past, present and future of science, as we Discover200 - find out more at https://www.rigb.org/discover200-ri
---
Judy Wu is an Associate Professor at the University of Houston, where she leads a research team investigating the concept of aromaticity and its modern applications in developing technologies, such as organic electronics and energy storage. With a background in computational quantum chemistry, she has 20 years of experience in research on the topic of aromaticity and antiaromaticity.
=================
ENJOY THE TALK....
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-0pky806Fo