25 Critical Questions that
Climate Alarmists Need to Answer or Explain
The preferred mean global average temperature for Earth is considered to be 15 degrees centigrade by global warmest. Why then has the mean global temperature for Earth been 2-3 degrees warmer than this for 95% of the last one billion years? Please explain.
If the global mean temperature for the Earth is considered to be 15 degrees centigrade , why has this temperature only very rarely been achieved in the last one billion years and only then when associated with ice ages? Please explain.
If atmospheric CO2 is a major contributor to global temperatures, why then has the mean global temperature been remarkably constant at 2-3 degrees warmer than today for over one billion years, despite considerable variations in atmospheric CO2 contents over that same period. Please explain.
If atmospheric CO2 is the enemy of coral reefs, why then are they composed 44 weight percent of CO2 and abound in warm waters where dissolved CO2 is abundantly available and an essential ingredient for their formation. Please explain.
If low lying Pacific island nations such as the Maldives and many others, fearing marine inundation, are concerned about atmospheric CO2, why then are these same islands composed largely of coral reef limestone averaging 44 weight percent of CO2 and many appear to be growing and few decreasing. Please explain?
Why are threatened low-lying Pacific island nations, being held above sea level solely by the massive amounts of CO2 contained in their coral substrates, threatened by more CO2 in the atmosphere?
As CO2 is a major component of coral reefs, why would not increased atmospheric CO2 levels increase the abundance of coral and coral reefs, and conversely reduced levels of CO2, decrease the abundance of coral and coral reefs. Please explain.
The formation of coral produces significant amounts of acid in its formation. Why then are coral reefs not considered to be a major contributor to global marine acidification? Please explain.
The burning of coal and fossil fuels is an essential means of recycling carbon back into the atmosphere, where it is in the form of CO2, essential for maintaining and sustaining future life. Not to do so is a long-term threat to life on earth as CO2 has undergone now a massive decline to dangerously low levels, where most plants are seriously starved. Why has science not addressed or publicized this existential issue?
For most of geological time on Earth there have been no permanent polar ice caps. If the long-term preferred optimum global men temperature is 15 degrees centigrade, how could this have happened? please explain.
The fact that the extremely critical observation that the Earth’s mean global temperature has been 2-3 degrees warmer than present temperatures for almost all of the last one billion years appears to have been overlooked or ignored by climate scientists. Please explain.
Why if CO2 is a poison, could virtually all life on Earth survive quite successfully in an atmosphere of 20% oxygen and 10,000 ppm (1%) CO2. Please explain.
If atmospheric CO2, is such a problem toxin, how could all forms of life, first of all develop, and then blossom and evolve in such a hostile environment where abundant CO2 forms the dominant stable form of carbon in the atmosphere, and the oceans? Please explain.
If CO2 is found not to be a cause of global warming, and is found to be a powerful and essential plant fertilizer, should the burning of fossil fuels be considered as a desirable and efficient means of greatly increasing the worlds agricultural production at minimal cost. Please explain.
For most of geological time atmospheric CO2 has been above 500 ppm and commonly exceeded 2000 ppm, accompanying at least two major glaciation events. At the moment we are concerned it is approaching 400 ppm, having come down from significantly higher levels. Please explain.
The claim that "the science is settled" and that "97% of scientists accept atmospheric CO2 as being responsible for global warming" has been thoroughly discredited but yet persists. Various other surveys have cast doubt on this, including a 31,000 signature petition of credible US scientists refuting these claims, Web site link : www.petitionproject.org . Please explain.
It seems atmospheric CO2 as an explanation of warming exists only because climate scientists could not think of any other explanation. They completely ignored or failed to recognize almost the entire earth history of a 2-3 degree warmer earth in favour of blaming a few 100 ppm of a life affirming gas. Please explain.
All new ground shifting ideas have been generated by unique individuals rallying against fierce entrenched established opposition protecting the status quo. Examples are: Galileo, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Alfred Wegener, Martin Luther, and a concerning small number of others. These were all leading “sceptics” of their day, railing against the inferior orthodoxy of the prevailing view of the time. Why are climate skeptics so reviled by orthodox science? Please explain.
Why hasn’t the Chief Scientist (Alan Finkel) been asked by the government to inquire into the merits of apposing view and present a report for the governments consideration. The government and parliament are as ignorant as the rest of the nation and in no position to make any judgement.
If human-induced atmospheric CO2 is inevitability found to be a failed model, will climate scientists and other leading scientists exhorting those views and decrying alternative explanations, be prepared to take responsibility for the trashing of science that will inevitably result and the billions of dollars of resources, energy and manpower wasted on such poor science, by such poor scientists?
Question twenty one
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reduced from some 1000 ppm to 400 ppm (a 60% reduction) in the last 150 million years, to now starvation levels for most plants and dependent life forms. How on "Earth" (literally), has this escaped the notice and concern of climate science, so busy chasing their tails after 100 ppm man-made CO2 that seems to contribute little, and strongly favouring mitigation of CO2 which would make the atmospheric depletion even worse?
Question twenty two
How can climate scientists justify terrifying the general population, particularly children, with fanciful fears that they have no proof, and little understanding of?
Question twenty three
Are Al Gore, David Attenborough, Barrack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, Greta 16 year old, and various film and music personalities & the huge number of school children climate-protesters, all considered adequate spokespeople for climate science in the media?
Question twenty four
Why is the term ocean acidification used when there is not an excess of H+ ions over OH- ions in ocean water? The ocean become less alkaline, closer to neutral pH at 7.0, not more acid.
Question twenty five
What needs to be done to redress the appalling level of scientific ignorance display by the general public, in schools and universities, and even among the most elite levels in the scientific and research communities?