Letters to Editors, Newspaper Articles & Recent Tweets
A selection of letters to editors and opinion pieces in newspapers and Tweets.
Although very ineffectual in debating complex issues, letters and Tweets are virtually the only access most individuals have to the media, the wider community, and to contribute to the wider debate. Tweets have the advantage in that although very short they are available 24/7, are immediately accessible and will nearly always be published.
Longer opinion pieces allow much greater discussion and nuanced argument but are generally restricted to contributions from well know identities, or prominent leaders in relevant fields, and not available to lesser mortals no matter how qualified those individuals may be.
A Letter to the Editor that I would like to see published.
RE-ESTABLISHING CARBON DIOXIDE'S TRASHED REPUTATION
The fact that global warming is occurring, but is due to a natural re-equilibration to longer-term warmer conditions following a recent cooling event, all driven by the sun, means that global warming is not due to atmospheric CO2 or any other man-made influence. Why pro-warming scientists and the IPCC have completely ignored this absolutely crucial fact and its implication defies comprehension.
IT NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT ATMOSPHERIC CO2 PLAYS LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING.
Because of the present toxic attitude to CO2 it would be difficult for the general public and even most in the scientific community to believe any of the following claims.
CO2 is a hugely beneficial atmospheric gas that needs a complete rethink and further study. It offers considerable potential for a great many unrecognized benefits for mankind in the future, particularly as a unique and extremely efficient fertilizer and essential plant food and nutrient. At he present time plants and vegetation are starved of adequate CO2 for optimum growth and development. In the last billion years atmospheric CO2 levels have dropped from some 3000 pm to around 300 ppm (now increased to 415 ppm). This is a massive reduction of 90%, most of which has gone permanently into forming marine limestones. We are approaching the limit of CO2 availability to sustain vegetation. Further CO2 mitigation would put additional stress on vegetation and agriculture.
CO2 is delivered automatically directly from the atmosphere to plants world wide, 24 hours per day, absolutely free. If we doubled atmospheric CO2 to 800 ppm, we could effectively double agricultural production on land and in the oceans, world wide virtually over night. Man-made atmospheric CO2 contributions over the last 30 years or so have noticeably and significantly contributed to the greening of the planet that is visible in satellite imagery of the Earth.
CO2 is very stable, recyclable and as a fertilizer, and as an atmospheric gas, effectively delivers itself to where it is needed.
CO2 is a colourless, odourless , tasteless, and non-toxic at levels up to a few thousand ppm. Its benign character is reinforced by its abundant use and presence in all carbonated drinks and foods and the 38,000 ppm consistently in our lungs.
CO2 is a minor atmospheric gas sourced most readily from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels. Its abundance is largely depleting in the environment, although there is virtually an inexhaustible supply of it retired in fossil fuels available for reuse and re-circulation, and from the burning of limestone to produce lime (CaO).
CO2 as a commercial product can be delivered in gaseous, liquid (under appropriate pressures), or in solid form.
As CO2 is not a contributor to global warming at present atmospheric levels, and is not a noxious exhaust gas but is environmentally beneficial, we can cheaply burn organic fuels such as coal largely with impunity for energy and electrical generation purposes. We no longer have to remove CO2 as a noxious exhaust gas, as it is in fact beneficial nutrient and not a problem waste product. We in effect already have "clean coal".
CO2 is a major and essential component of coral reefs (44 weight percent). In fact if we doubled atmospheric CO2 levels to 800 ppm we could significantly increase the amount of coral reefs in existence.
The blackening of the name and reputation of CO2, and the almost universal ignorance science has of its important role and function as a beneficial atmospheric gas, almost beggars belief. The vast amount of energy and resources devoted to completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the role of CO2, and the wilful ignorance displayed by those responsible is appalling. It may be difficult to undo this damage.
Dr Robert Fagan
Geologist & Geochemist
SOME THOUGHT PROVOKING TWEETS & COMMENTS
(Bob Fagan 2020, Twitter tag @fagandr1 )
- More than 50% of the world's landmass experiences extreme life-threatening cold for at least 6 months of the year. The other 50% does not experience any life-threatening climate at all. Where is the global warming threat in this? We need to address real-world problems, not man -made nonsense.
- CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis, for all vegetation, & for all life. CO2 is more fundamental than O2, but @ 0.04%, not 20%. There is no conclusive evidence that CO2 has ever significantly influenced the worlds climate in the 4.5 billion year geological or climate record.
- The 400+ ppm CO2 in the present atmosphere is all that is available to support all the existing & all the future life that will ever exist if we do not preserve & increase it. Burning fossil fuels is the only realistic way of increase life-giving CO2. Mitigation to reduce CO2 will reduce life.
- The economic future of the world hangs on CO2 being the climate trigger. Are e prepared to risk so much for an unproven concept, seriously questioned by leading scientists in atmospheric physics, & lacking evidence in the geological & climate record over millions of years?
- We need a global-scale, high-level, thorough, scientific investigation into the role of atmospheric CO2 in climate, as a critical life-affirming gas, & it' s serious long-term depletion & future. Top physicists, chemists, geologists & climatologists all need to be involved resolving this now.
- We cannot risk so much on such a poorly understood concept that so few have an adequate understanding of, & that is so strongly contested. CO2's role in climate is unproven, cannot be verified in experiments, modelling or prediction, & does not accord with the well-known & established geological & climate record.
- The simplest effective climate plan involving the least cost & damage would be to do nothing & revert to 1990 energy generation technologies. It will save vast trove of money & wont change the climate, because nothing will. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It ain't broke, CO2 is a valuable harmless life giving gas.
- Mass climate hysteria, aided by a compliant media, & irrational decision & policy making, are the biggest threats to the globe. The weak minded have inherited the Earth & are about to destroy it & those who know better seem impotent. Where are the strong decisive leaders we need?
- We should disregard anything climate alarmists say until they get at least one "end-of-the-world" prediction right. Until then they have no credibility.
- Every "end-of-the-world" prophesy since the beginning of time has one thing in common. Not one of them has ever come true So far.
- Let's see if renewable power can maintain a major steel or aluminium plant, a city of greater than 200,000, mid-winter, at latitudes greater than 40 degrees, for more than 30 years at comparative costs & efficiency as has coal.
- The reputation of 400 yrs of the finest quality science has been trashed by 30 yrs of climate science, green idiocy, UN irrelevance, a failed 2ndry & Tertiary education system producing politicians & a general population that could not find it's own arse with both hands & a map.
- Atmospheric CO2 is a critical issue. Is it a climate problem or not? If not that would completely change the direction of the debate. Climate science models & theory presume man-made warming is occurring, & atmospheric CO2 is responsible. Geological & climate history recorded in the rock record says it is not. One of these must be wrong. One is based on contested theory & modeling with a poor track record. The other based on physical evidence recorded over 100's of million yrs in the Earth's rock record. The latter suggests we've been here many times before & survived, & CO2 is irrelevant. Why's geology ignored?
- We have had a workable civilization over the last 10,000 yrs & survived 10 such warming events, & particularly flourished in warm periods. https://pic.twitter.com/3DM7DFTTAC
- All coal is clean coal as CO2 is not a pollutant & does not change the climate. Fossil fuels are the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient energy source available. Renewables are wholly inferior. CO2 mitigation programs dangerously deplete life-giving CO2.
- Anyone who believes that atmospheric CO2 above current levels are a serious survival threat, when part of the lowest range of atmospheric CO2 in the last billion years, has some serious explaining to do. How did life survive even the last 140 million years? pic.twitter.com/2RZzBMzrZ5 .
- Every C atom in every living thing, past, present, or future originated from atmospheric CO2, as did all the O2. CO2 will all inevitably end up in limestone (44% CO2), only 415 ppm left. Then every living thing is dead forever. We need to recycle used CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
- All coal is clean coal as CO2 is not a pollutant & does not change the climate. All things being taken into account, fossil fuels are the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient energy source available. Intermittent renewables and batteries are wholly inferior. CO2 mitigation programs dangerously deplete already dangerously depleted life-giving CO2.
- The current warming is just one of a 1000 year interglacial warming & cooling cycle. These are like seasonal climate events, not like yearly winter-summer cycles, but mega regular 1000 year cycles. We do not seem to recognize this very long-term climate regularity as natural.
- We are talking about a frighteningly large proportion of our population, particularly the better educated being so easily misled, then misleading others, frightening children, badgering, defaming, de-platforming, censoring & blacklisting opponents. Do you think they will repent when proven wrong?
- Humans can only live without technological support (clothing, shelter & heating),in the warmest of the Earth's climate zones. Without this survival support, outside tropical zones (only 10% of the Earth''\s surface), survival would be impossible & the rest of the world uninhabitable . Global warming would be a huge benefit to all life.
- Climate science has failed to understand & fix the problem of climate change because there is no problem. Modelling diagnosing, explaining or fixing the problem does not work when there is no problem in the first place. You cannot fix that which is not broken. Climate scientists have not realized this fundamental fact.
- Burning timber to create electricity is a form of renewable energy as the CO2 created is released back into the atmosphere to be rcycled to produce new timber for future fuel. The energy component is provided free by the sun. It does require energy farming, but does not require extensive external infrastructure or mined resources as do windmills and solar panels. The economics of sustainable wood burning looks promising, but land usage may be high. Nuclear energy appears a much more productive and managable energy source.
- Being intelligent & occupying senior academic, research, political, policy, or management positions, or in the media, is no guarantee of knowledge, competency, understanding or ability. Least of all it would seem if you are a climate scientist.
- The technical, physical & economic limitations of most renewable energy technologies, in a fair comparison against "clean coal" (that is coal where exhaust CO2 is not removed because it is not a pollutant or climate agent), will mean that it is renewable energy projects that will become hideously expensive, wasteful stranded assets.
- If you think you know everything, then you can't learn anything. We need all keep this in mind. Knowledge comes from a range of disciplines, sources & experience. No one knows everything.
- CO2 strongly favours the oceans by some 60:1, providing a significant CO2 sink which is favoured by lower temps. Atmospheric CO2 can only increase by burning fossil fuels, occasional volcanism, heating the ocean, and burning limestone.
- Atmospheric CO2 mitigation will drive more CO2 from the ocean to replace that lost. This is pure equilibrium chemistry. Mitigation programs are doomed to failure as there is some 60X more CO2 in the ocean, & as that goes into the atmosphere, it is replaced in the oceans by dissolving marine limestones being triggered to produce more. Again pure equilibrium chemistry. We can never win.
- To suggest that non-peer reviewed science lacks value & credibility is absurd. Most scientists are fully capable of assessing & providing their own peer review of published work in their own field. Most published science has value to those familiar with the science content - peer reviewed or not.
- In the geological climate record CO2 correlates with temp because temp always preceded CO2, but CO2 was mistakenly believed to be the driver. For the first time in the modern era an increase in man-made (industrial) CO2 occurred unaccompanied by any temperature increase. The CO2 rose from 260 to 415 ppm (almost 150 ppm), but so far there has not been any concomitant rise in temp to match previous equivalent temp rises accompanying earlier, similar CO2 rises in he past. If CO2 is the climate diver, this should never happen. The temperature now should be some 15 deg F (8 Deg C) warmer to match temperatures presumed caused in previous similar magnitude fluctuations in CO2. That this has clearly not happened provides proof that CO2 does not drive temperature or climate. These relationships are well displayed in the diagram below.
30. In charts like that of the Vostok Ice Core below, if CO2 controls the temperature, what controls the regularly increasing and decreasing CO2 levels? What mechanism drives the CO2 up and down so regularly? Where does the CO2 come from and go to? Regularly fluctuating temperatures we can understand as climate variations, but regularly fluctuation atmospheric CO2 is more problematic, but we need to understand this if it is a climate driver. We can understand that present man-made (industrial) CO2 must have come first in the chart above, yet temperatures have not risen to match that increase in this instance compared with the previous instances of increasing CO2 in this chart. We can understand temperatures varying regularly and systematically due to Milankovitch cycles, in turn driving CO2. But it is not possible to visualise how the reverse would happen (regular and systematic variations in CO2 occurring and driving temperature).