Facebook Twitter

“The difference between manmade (“bad”) and natural (“good”) CO2 … exists in the minds of politicians, bureaucrats and scientists who understand the principle of a dollar sign in front of a number.” – Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser


How to Tell Good and Bad CO2 From One Another

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

All life on earth depends on CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere. Its concentration is currently around 400 ppm (parts per million) or 0.04%. Life would cease to exist if the CO2 level were to drop to half of that. At 200 ppm, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would be too small for most plants to take up the CO2 and convert it to plant matter.

But isn’t the government telling you that CO2 is just about the greatest villain of modern times?  Isn’t it true that CO2 is near the “tipping point” of causing runaway “climate change?”

Natural CO2

The earth has had CO2 in its atmosphere forever. In fact, many million years ago, its level was much higher; ten to 100 times higher than now. All that natural CO2 came from volcanoes and smaller volcanic vents all over the globe. Of course, nature has not stopped producing that, not at all. At any time, a couple of dozen volcanoes are really active somewhere around the world, but even when they are “dormant” many emit massive amounts of volcanic gases all the time. That’s where all the natural CO2 in our atmosphere has come from ever since the earth was created.

Manmade CO2

Manmade CO2, in more scientific terms “anthropogenic” carbon dioxide is released by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. That CO2 is called “bad” for the environment. Barack Obama calls it “carbon pollution” and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks it needs to be controlled. The consequence is that many governments want to tax it, which makes it “good” for them.

CO2 is Vital to Life on Earth

Strictly from a chemical point of view, one CO2 molecule is the same as the next. There is no difference between manmade and natural CO2 molecules, none at all. The trees in the forests and the algae in the water use them all for the same purpose and in the same way to build up biomass—in plain English, to grow. The plants in the farmers’ fields rely on it as much as the fish feeding on the smaller prey in the water which feeds on algae. Take away that vital nutrient and the whole food chain is in peril; especially the top tier, that‘s us humans.

The Difference between Good and Bad CO2

The difference between manmade (“bad”) and natural (“good”) CO2 is not a chemical one. It only exists in the minds of politicians, bureaucrats and scientists who understand the principle of a dollar sign in front of a number.

Natural CO2 comes without any such sign and, therefore, is of no consequence. Obviously, that’s prevents it from being manipulated or taxed – a fact which makes it then “bad.”

In contrast, manmade CO2 is highly $$$-laden and therefore now “good.”

And that, dear readers, is the only difference between “good” and “bad” CO2!

Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts
convenientmyths.com

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths.com

 

15 Responses to How to Tell Good and Bad CO2 From One Another

  1. eco-geek says:

    So if fossil fuel CO2 is not of abiotic origin as the text books tell us (i.e. fossil fuel is the result of burning carbon originally sequesterd from the volcanoes by plants) then man made CO2 is also natural CO2! The human input is in some small measure returning the CO2 needed to support the biosphere which would otherwise be lost into the long term carbon cycle a process which would ultimately result in the end of life on Earth.

    So the burning of fossil fuels is a duty of mankind in his stewardship of the planet and part of his obligation towards Earth’s environment.

    One cannot truly be a Environmentalist without supporting this vital and necessary activity which secondarily aids human economic development and inculcates a desire to further protect the planet.

    Indeed if it were not for the burning of fossil fuels the environmental movements of the world could not exist.

  2. That’s exactly right Klaus. Thank you for spelling it out!

  3. FerdIII says:

    How true, 4/100 of 1 % is a whole lot of nothing. Double it; triple; whatever, the only outcome will be positive. More food, less cold = an advancing civilization and fewer dead. The exact opposite of what the fascist cult of warm wants.

  4. Steven says:

    Bad CO2 = Man made CO2? Sounds like the powers that be are looking for an excuse to kill off more than 6.5 billion people in order to fullfill the first commandment on the Georgia Guidestones.

  5. JOHN B says:

    What is the percentage in the atmosphere of “man-made” vs “natural” CO2? If it is measurable?
    My understanding (could be wrong) is that one volcanic eruption sends out as much as all the man-made C02 does for a long time period.
    And that the man-made percentage is negligible compared to all the naturally occurring sources.

  6. Jeff Anderson says:

    That is how life goes…when it gets cold for extended periods…more people will die and the economy will tank. Civilizations end up disappearing. Just ask all the former civilizations that disappeared over the years…

  7. kingbum says:

    An ice age seems to bring about Darwinism and the whole survival of the fittest….maybe just maybe its mother nature giving us exactly what we need…a way of cleaning out the Draconian idiots who wants to kill 6.5 billion people…let’s say they try to keep all the resources for themselves. ..with the downfall of their civilization they are helping bring about desperate people will do desperate things and bring a life or death situation to their doorstep…trust me mother nature stopped Napoleon….mother nature stopped Hitler….shes coming to our rescue again…

    • reezeh says:

      I’m afraid not.
      Those in power will have all they need for a comfortable life swimming in swimming pools full of heated champaign, Bollinger or chateau de plonk while Joe Public tries to get by on half a mouldy biscuit or three beans scavenged from a landfill a week, while sucking on frozen rocks to try stave off the hunger pangs.

      They have it planned right this time; they have been preparing for a mass-suppression for the last few decades at least.
      Don’t expect the police to fight your corner, they have already picked their side and it ain’t yours. They will be the stormtroopers who will get food and perks for “riot” control.

  8. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty lays it out, plain and simple, oil was determined to be a derivative of rotten organic material, in a Conference in Geneva in 1892, helpfully argued by scientists send by Rockefeller that wanted to sell the impression that oil was scarce – to keep the price up.

    You can watch his opinion after 12 minutes in this videoclip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXnUD2-joAc

  9. Cynthia says:

    Hi Robert and everyone,
    My comment will be more like a question, as I really couldn’t find this information. I’ve been reading this blog for years now, and I know it’s getting colder, but I’m from the south of Brasil and even though we had an incredible cold winter last year (june-aug) with snow and all, we’re having an uber hot summer now, with temperatures breaking every record, and I can’t find any relevant information as to why. I mean, I know my country is not socially or economically relevant, so we can’t get information on air currents, sea currents, etc, as in the US or Europe (i.e. polar vortex). Do we have a tropical vortex or something that’s bringing this extreme heat? Where is it coming from? Antartica is colder, so why the heat? All I can find on Google is “brazilians are hot”, no scientific explanation besides AGW nonsense.. .

    • J D Chipman says:

      Cynthia,

      Media within the majority of westernized countries will not provide the type of information that you desire. However, in today’s world, you’re in luck. All the information you desire is out there. Like Alice and the Looking Glass, all you need do is look through the Looking Glass to see Wonderland.

      Most every site on the web has Links to other sites. These are your portals through Wonderland. Start with the Links on this site. Hop from one link to another and then another, bookmarking any, that look interesting, along the way. In a few hours, you could easily have 25+ sites bookmarked. I have hundreds. Revisit them individually to educate yourself on climate issues; from politics to news, to detailed scientific weather and climate data. Your local media outlets won’t help you discover the truths you seek. Like Alice, you’re on your own to explore, but that’s a good thing. Your curiosity has already provided the first and most important step; question everything!

      Have fun and good hunting.

      John

      PS – I did look at Sea Surface Temps near Southern Brazil and they are running 1.5-2.5 degrees C above normal, which may explain some of the warmth. But climate is a very complex subject, so I’m sure there’s a lot more to explain your particular location’s temps. As a note, the Southern tip of S. America is running about the same deviation below normal sea surface temps. Weather is local and short term, Climate is world wide over years and longer periods.

  10. Harold says:

    By focusing on a few parts per million of CO2, politicians are “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel,” because they want to ignore the crushing debt of the world economic system, and the potentially disastrous effects this debt could cause. The most immediate threat to the world is economic chaos and dislocation, which are manmade. Instead of solving the problems brought on by their own corruption and incompetence, political “leaders” want to change the focus to a nonexistent issue supposedly caused by their constituents.

  11. reezeh says:

    Charlie was on news here today:
    that he been saying man-made CO2 is bad, causing climate change and due to the powerful intimidating … blah blah
    Don’t forget he is our next “Commander In Chief” but we don’t get a choice of any description in that matter…
    When Lizzie goes UK, or what is left of it… England at least will be f***ed.

  12. T says:

    I could take this brilliant post to my neighbour and say “read this” and would be greeted by “What are you on about?” And classed as a nut, from then on.

    In ten years time I could do the same and would be asked. “Well if you knew this why did you not tell us?

    It’s a no win situation.

  13. Cynthia says:

    J D Chimpman

    Your response was very rude and uncalled for, everyone I ever met in this blog were always very polite. Go to wonderland yourself sir.


Hit Counter provided by seo company