Humans (and animals) inhale air containing oxygen. Within a body, glucose reacts with oxygen, releasing energy for the brain, muscles, and other parts of the body. Glucose contains carbon, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide (CO2). The body gets rid of CO2 by exhaling it.
A modern society is based on energy extraction and conversion. Today, most of this energy comes from fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, and oil. Kerogen and bitumen (from oil shale and oil sands, respectively) are relatively novel and promising fuel sources. Inside complex machinery, carbon and hydrogen from fossil fuels react with oxygen, releasing energy for transportation, electricity generation, heating, and other human needs. The reaction produces CO2, which is released into the atmosphere.
Climate alarmism states that its goal is to prevent us from releasing CO2. Most alarmists do not even understand how far they reach, but do enjoy power and money that come from so formidable agenda. Climate alarmists justify their actions by claiming that releasing CO2 is harmful or even dangerous. They claim that a dangerous or even catastrophic climate change is underway, and that the US and other Western countries have caused and continue causing it by burning their fossil fuels.
We know that these claims are false. In 1976 – 1983, significant theoretical research was conducted in the US on the impact of CO2 related global warming, with a focus on potential harm and dangers. Eminent scientists participated. The culmination of this research was the 1983 Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee Report, better known as the Nierenberg Report after its Chairman, William Nierenberg. The report’s conclusion was “concern, but not panic,” and the recommendation not to decrease fossil fuel use, but to continue research and monitoring. Since then, new results have been accumulating, most of which diminishing the concern and some disagreeing with the alarmist agenda in other ways. Later, William Nierenberg strongly opposed global warming alarmism, and has been hated and vilified by the alarmists.
The majority of the media hugging “climate change scientists” are impostors. Some of them were recruited from among green activists and obscure PhDs by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a UN organization, where a vote by North Korea or Zimbabwe weighs the same as a vote by the US. After such recruitment and the delivery of expected results, the careers of these “scientists” have skyrocketed. Some other “climate scientists” are simply journalists, historians, musicologists, copywriters, and professional activists, talking about science.
Energy extraction, conversion and use have been the foundation of human society since the discovery of fire. The environmentalists and politicians (elected and unelected) behind the climate alarmism (and foolish climate cult followers) are against fossil fuels, but they are also against nuclear power and hydro power dams. As wind power went from a nuisance to grid operators to a minor source of electrical energy (unreliable and prohibitively expensive), they started attacking it as well. There are no other energy options at this time. How do they want us to grow food, light our buildings, operate machinery, and drive? Using the power of their dreams?
We also know that CO2 is plant food. Agricultural crops convert it into biomass using sunlight. Humans and animals then eat these crops. We do not want people in poor countries to die from hunger and related diseases, but we cannot always provide them with fertilizers and good seeds for their crops – frequently because of resistance from environmentalists, NGOs, and corrupt anti-American governments or warlords. So, developed countries (including the US and China) then send airborne fertilizer – CO2. What is wrong with this?
This site uses a scientifically correct term, “infrared absorbing gases,” to describe gases (such as water vapor, CO2, methane, and some others), capable of absorbing infrared radiation. Infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere trap and reflect back some of the thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface. This increases the surface temperature. The alternative term, “greenhouse gases” (or, even worse, “greenhouse gas”) was introduced only at the end of the 1970s, when the global warming theory attracted political attention. CO2 is added to greenhouses because it is plant food, not because it warms a greenhouse (it does not). The air inside a greenhouse is warm because its transparent roof and walls allow sunlight in, but prevent warm air inside from rising. Thus, the term “greenhouse gas” creates a false link between CO2 and warming.