Now, ‘De-Carbing’ the World Isn’t Enough, But Some Geologists Aren’t Buying Into Climate Clamor

By Mark Anderson
STOP THE PRESSES! News Association

The vast majority of climate scientists keenly know what opinion pays off financially when it comes to their climate change research; the process is simple: Only publish articles and pursue research that convey gloomy scenarios about catastrophic climate change seriously harming the human race, lest we mend our ways; and you’d best stay mum about any misgivings you may have. We can only be allowed to have “the best science that money can buy.” All other approaches and views need not even exist, let alone seek a fair hearing in the illustrious university venues, legislative chambers, and editorial pages of western “democracy.”

Amid prolific use of fear-breeding terminology such as “climate breakdown,” scientific journals, infused with such bias, and echoed uncritically by the Mass Media Syndicate, lately have been stumping for a brand-new but already overused goal—“decarbonization”—likely an unachievable task in a world whose very existence is underpinned by carbon-based lifeforms.

Of the main gases comprising the earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide (CO2) is at the bottom, bested by nitrogen (78.084%), oxygen (20.947%), argon (0.934%) and CO2 (0.035%), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But to “decarb” the world still isn’t enough, some alarmists now allege.


A new paper in Oxford Open Climate Change, published by Oxford University Press, calls for “strategies humanity must pursue to reduce climate change,” which “will have to include more than reducing greenhouse gases,” according to a Nov. 2 Oxford University Press USA news release.

The paper is based on climate data analysis from researcher James Hansen. Interestingly, Hansen is referred to as “the father of global warming” due to his early warnings about the phenomenon in the 1980s. He directed the NASA Goddard Space Institute from 1981 to 2013.

That press release summarizes the new paper by claiming:

Scientists have known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases warm the Earth’s surface and that the abundance of greenhouse gases changes naturally as well as from human actions. Roger Revelle, who was one of the early scientists to study global warming, wrote in 1965 that industrialization meant that human beings were conducting a “vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels, which adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air. CO2 has now reached levels that have not existed for millions of years.

Hansen recommends:

  • First, the rapid phasedown of CO2emissions,  requiring a rising domestic carbon fee with a border duty on products from nations without a carbon fee, along with [using] modern nuclear power to complement renewable energies;
  • Second, the West “must cooperate with developing nations to help them achieve energy paths consistent with a propitious climate for all”; and
  • Third, even with these efforts, Hansen believes that increased global warming will bring dangerous consequences; he argues we should research and develop temporary, purposeful actions to address Earth’s now enormous energy imbalance.

The imbalance is described as “much more energy coming in (absorbed sunlight) than going out (heat radiation to space),” and that excess is allegedly “equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, with most of that energy going into the ocean. Now, largely because of decreasing aerosols, the imbalance has doubled . . . This huge imbalance is the proximate cause of accelerated global warming and increased melting of polar ice . . .”

How one measures that such an excess is on par with so many atom bombs is never explained. It’s simply the holy writ of the “science” of secular humanism (secular humanism was found to be a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court). Thus, dogma is masqueraded as science before a bewildered public that still needs gasoline, coal and natural gas to run this thing called physical life, wherein it’s deemed normal to live every day at the edge of an economic abyss mired in debt, receiving “if-come” instead of dependable income, all while being told that yes, you MUST try to afford an electric car. Choice is less and less of the equation.

By the way, “decreasing aerosols” means a lessening of actual pollution has been achieved, largely in accordance with the U.S. Clean Air Act. That’s a good thing, right? Well, not necessarily, since most of the scientific community has rebranded carbon dioxide as a pollutant via a largely dogmatic “ONE VIEW ONLY” look at the earth’s climate.

Potential actions, added Hansen, include “injection of stratospheric aerosols, for which volcanoes provide relevant but inadequate test cases” and, oddly enough, even “the spraying of salty ocean water by autonomous sail boats in regions susceptible to cloud seeding.”

Cloud seeding is an approximately century-old practice that often yields results when, for instance, seeking to bring rain to arid, sometimes drought-stricken areas, even desert nations like UAE. So why isn’t cloud seeding used to douse or prevent the often-raging wildfires that climatologists insist are the offspring of drought brought on by “man made” climate change? How about some man-made solutions?

Of course, we then might want to ask whether “stratospheric aerosols” already are being used (making those odd, sudden criss-cross lines that spread and turn a once crystal blue sky opaque, something deserving more exploration) and whether current cloud seeding programs—see the ongoing cloud-seeding projects by private companies through the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation—are producing downpours in some areas and sometimes causing drought as a by-product in other areas. That would mean that some of the weather anomalies tied to “your automobiles, your backyard grills, your coal-fired power plants and even your inconsiderate cow’s flatulence” might instead, at least at times, be the result of weather modification activities by government researchers, academia and private companies that are kept relatively secret, or they are technically in “the open” but the toothless government / corporate mouthpieces who fancy themselves as intrepid news “reporters” don’t bother to look or ask.


It turns out that some geologists don’t share in the climate scare peddled by weathermen, physicists and others in the scientific community. “[Geologists] understand that, even with a 50% rise in CO2 since 1880, today’s level of the gas is very low in comparison with most of the geologic record. They also know that, despite a 1.2-degree Celsius rise in the so-called global average temperature since 1880, we actually live in unusually cold times,” noted Tom Harris, director of the International Climate Science Coalition.

“Also . . . starting 175 million years ago,” according to Harris (citing secular-science time lines), “CO2 levels were in a steady decline. Had we not started to burn coal, oil and natural gas, this decline would almost certainly have dropped below the 150 parts per million level at which plants, and therefore all life on Earth, die . . . .  the CO2 has been used by corals, crabs, clams, marine plankton and other calcifying animals, with much of it now locked up in limestone rocks . . . Geologists know that, by helping boost CO2 . . . we have saved life on Earth with our use of hydrocarbon fuels and cement production.”










Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *