Counter-Arguments

This page contains CalQlata's arguments denouncing the ongoing claims relating CO₂ to 'Global Warming'. We shall add more arguments as time permits.

CO₂ Exclusivity

It is fatuous to claim that this atom or that molecule does not obey the ideal gas law, for instance, without offering the mathematical proof to back it up. It is akin to Einstein and Bohr claiming that the laws of physics do not apply to galactic orbits or atomic models in order to justify their bizarre theories, that not only cannot relate to the normal laws of physics, they do not even relate to each other. It is an untenable position and easily disproved (Relativity & Quantum Theory).
Every proton-electron pair in every atom and every molecule, without exception, obeys the same laws of nature. To claim otherwise is simply deluding oneself.

The car's contribution to global warming

Given that an average car uses about 40hp for movement at any time (on our roads), and is on the road for about 600 hours a year; it consumes about 2400hp.hr or 6.4E+9J of movement energy every year.
As there are about 1.4bn cars in the world today, together they consume about 8.98E+18J of movement energy annually.
Conservatively, cars today are about 30% fuel efficient, so twice as much energy is lost in heat as in movement. Therefore, all the cars in the world are emitting upto 17.9E+18J of heat energy each year.
This means that at the very most, 1.79E+19:1.39E+24, or 1.28E-05 of the earth's atmospheric heat, which represents approximately 3.5E-03°C, is being generated by our cars. In other words, you could remove all of the cars in the world from our roads and the earth's atmospheric temperature would fall by less than 0.0035°C.
You can multiply this value by two or even three, but it changes nothing: our cars contribute almost nothing to atmospheric temperature.

As manufacturing and mining contribute 100% to the earth's pollution, and as explained in our analysis of the earth's atmosphere; CO₂'s contribution to earth's atmospheric temperature is negligible, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue in favour of wind-turbines, solar cells, batteries, etc. over the internal combustion engine today, not least because they are all massively innefficient. In-fact all of today's sustainable energy generation methods consume more energy from design and development, through processing and production to recycling, than they can ever generate during their operational life, moreover, they contribute to almost all of the world's pollution.

Climate change

Of course the earth's climate is changing, it has been changing ever since it trapped its moon and developed one. Milankovitch revealed the cause of climate change almost a hundred years ago, and it has nothing to do with CO₂ or any of mankind's activities. So let’s put a stop to costly and wasteful conferences and arctic expeditions that will achieve nothing other than generate genuine pollution; along with a massive bill for the world’s tax-payers.
It’s ironic isn’t it, that our governments are forcing a change from what is currently the most efficient and cleanest form of fuel for our vehicles (petrol), to the least efficient and most polluting (batteries), and at the same time declaring CO₂ - an essential molecule for life on earth - a pollutant.
And if the real reason for all this CO₂ global warming nonsense is simply to cover up worries about fossil-fuel availability, why not simply admit it. Because there is now a genuine simple solution: neutron energy.

What is most worrying, however, is the proliferation of global official warnings to force everyone to plant more trees whilst simultaneously reducing CO₂, which they need to grow. This contradiction, reveals either a serious misunderstanding in the workings of organic chemistry, or that we [the general public] are being deliberately deceived. Plant growth is directly proportional to CO₂ availability, and the more plant growth, the more oxygen will be available for the planet’s animal life.

How the earth and its atmosphere were created

The earth has the same age as our sun, it has the same age as all matter in the universe. In fact, all matter in the universe has the same age.
Just like all the planets and moons in our galaxy - and in the universe - the earth was originally a galactic comet; rubble left-over from a stellar [orbital] collision. It was trapped by its star (our sun) as it orbited its galactic force-centre [Hades].
Before the earth trapped its moon, it was a cold lump of rock and water. It had no atmosphere. At that time, our sun may not even have been stellar. It may not have trapped sufficient planets to generate the internal heat required to release fissionable energy. It would therefore have been a gas star; not bright.
When the earth first trapped its moon, the competing [orbital] forces between the earth and its sun and its moon began to generate internal frictional heat in its mantle through spin. This heat is, and always has been, responsible for the mantle plumes, which are responsible for movement in its surface crust, which is responsible for the release of internal heat through earthquakes and volcanoes, which is responsible for creating our atmosphere and our weather.
Prior to the creation of our atmosphere, there was no nitrogen, oxygen or argon in the atmosphere; it was less than 0.038% of its current mass. It was very thin indeed. The boiling point of water would have been little more than 274K, and if the sun was not stellar, there would have been insufficient heat in the atmosphere - such as it was - to melt ice; the earth was cold. But CO₂ was being released via activity in the tectonic plates. This CO₂ fed the proteins that existed in the rock (developed and spread during previous universal periods) and created the first plant-life on earth; Stromatolites.
These plants exhaled oxygen which began to fill the atmosphere. Initially, this oxygen became fixed through the surface water (the sun must have been stellar at this time) to the planet's iron-rich matter. After the surface iron became saturated, most of the oxygen released by the ever-increasing Stromatolite population became free; in the atmosphere.
Earth's atmospheric mass increased, with O₂ becoming its dominant gas. This encouraged the development of those proteins that formed the basis of [oxygen breathing] animal life.
During this early period of ever-increasing CO₂ and O₂, plant and animal life proliferated.
The decay of animal life released N₂ into the atmosphere. Because N₂ is not as quickly absorbed into the earth's surface matter it began to dominate our atmosphere. As animal life continues to proliferate on the earth's surface, its atmospheric N₂ will continue to increase and its O₂ will decrease.
This sequence of events means that if animal mass continues to increase, we need to increase our atmospheric O₂ production rate. And the only sustainable way to do this is to increase the planets plant mass. And the only way to do this is to increase atmospheric CO₂.

Experts can cough and splutter all they wish. The above is reality. It is how the earth and its atmosphere were created.

However (based upon popular myth) ...

... the nail in the coffin for the theory associating CO₂ with 'global warming' is ultimately simple logic:
1) When the earth was less than 1bn years old it was much more active than today (more CO₂)
2) The earth's tectonic plates had probably not fully developed, meaning less subduction
3) There was no life on planet earth (or at least negligible when compared to today), so no long-term carbon cycle
4) As such CO₂ dominated the earth's atmosphere
5) The seas were shallower, most less than 500m, and covered a much larger percentage of the earth's surface and were therefore more susceptible to evaporation (which would have warmed the atmosphere)
... and yet the earth was covered in liquid water

CalQlator's Opinion (based upon mathematics and physics)

The current environmental bandwagon; green energy, saving the planet, CO₂ the pollutant, sustainable living, saving the environment, etc., is getting out of hand.

There is no such thing as green energy. All energy is electro-magnetic radiation (EME); it isn't green. If the political spin refers to killing less trees, reducing atmospheric CO₂ will not help (see 'CO₂ the pollutant' below). It is the fuel and release mechanisms that are responsible for pollution, and the less efficient these are, the more pollution they create.
Planets don't need saving. We could drop ten-million H-bombs all over Earth's surface, killing 99.999% of its animal and plant life, just as has occurred during the planet's lifetime to date, and will continue to do so for the rest of its life. The planet won't care. It will continue orbiting its force-centre for the next 51-billion years regenerating new life forms as it does so. Nothing we do can change that.
We must get the concept; 'CO₂ the pollutant' straightened out. CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is a necessary chemical for plants to proliferate. Plants always grow according to CO₂ availability. Reduce atmospheric CO₂ and plant-life will diminish; deserts will expand and the oxygen available for animal life will fall. Increase atmospheric CO₂, and plant-life will proliferate. Irrespective of this fact of life; mankind's contribution is tiny compared with that generated by the planet itself, just one volcanic eruption, and all of mankind's CO₂ emissions for that year will become irrelevant.
Sustainable living is a fallacy. The only form of sustainable living for humans is as hunter-gatherers. The evolution of farming destroyed any likelihood of life on this planet becoming sustainable, because farming created greed and envy; the fundamental laws of human society today. Not one of the claims regarding sustainable living - solar panels, batteries, wind-turbines, wave-energy, hydro-electric dams, etc. - is true; every one of these generators and converters consumes more energy (from design to recycling) than it ever releases during its active life. Especially batteries, which generate no energy at all; they are simply storage units, making them less than 0% efficient.
Saving the environment is something of a misnomer. Our environment is continually changing according to the movement of the stars, planets and moons in our galaxy, nothing we do can change that. However, we humans can help to minimise adverse effects of pollution to make life easier (for us) by minimising it. But this defies evolution. We, have created a way of life that naturally increases pollution; it makes money. The human race isn't threatened by pollution, it is threatened by its own laws (political greed).

Almost all of the claims currently publicised by politicians and the media concerning the environment make no sense whatsoever. What's more, none of them can be substantiated other than with statistics, which can be manipulated and misinterpreted to say anything you want them to say.
So, instead of flying around the world to discuss meaningless goals that could be done over the internet, or taking hundreds of people to the arctic and antarctic to measure effects that could be achieved remotely, at huge cost to the world's tax-payers, and neither of which does anything to minimise pollution, try telling us (the tax-paying public) the truth; are all of these claims nothing more than revenue generating hype to benefit the few?

It appears obvious to us here at CalQlata, that just as with the enforcement of vehicle speed limits, which are responsible for causing more than 85% of the accidents on our roads, reducing CO₂ will be detrimental to animal life on our planet; but because they both generate additional taxes, our politicians consider that the end justifies the means (for them anyway).