Physicist throws global warming under the bus

Posted by: Phineas on September 20, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Shrieks of “HERESY!!” and “APOSTASY!!” must be echoing through the Cathedral of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming right about now, as a former University of Ottawa professor says that fossil fuels are insignificant to the amount of CO2 in the air:

The present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y). GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet. And of course all biomass can in principle be considered fuel that could be burned with oxygen (O2) to produce CO2 gas, H2O water, energy, and an ash residue.

This shows the extent to which anthropogenic energy production from fossil fuel burning is small in comparison to the sun’s energy delivery to Earth, since biomass primary production results from the sun’s energy via photosynthesis.

(…)

Given all the fuss that is made about the present rate of fossil fuel burning (2010; 0.8 x 10^13 kg-C/y where 10^13 = 10,000,000,000,000 with thirteen zeros), it is important to keep in mind that this represents an amount of CO2 release comparable to or somewhat less than the CO2 released by simple breathing from humankind and its domestic animals [LINK]. The combined biomass of humankind and its domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, pets, etc.) is in turn estimated to be only 0.04% of Earth’s living biomass (all expressed as kilograms of carbon, kg-C), which is a lot more CO2-producing breathing. (Ants, for example, are estimated to represent ten to one hundred times the biomass of humankind and ants can be argued to have “transformed” the planet and its ecology far more than humans.)

Emphasis added.

Dr. Rancourt has a very Left/Progressive outlook, but a portion of his conclusion is worth quoting:

For left progressives to collaborate with First World governments that practice global extortion and geopolitical wars in order to pass carbon schemes to undemocratically manage and control the developments of non-First-World communities and sovereign states is obscene, racist, and cruelly cynical.

This conservative finds it hard to disagree. Well, except for that “global extortion” and “geopolitical wars” part. Can’t have everything…

But he touches on a good point: the AGW cultists and alarmists not only want to cripple Western economies and establish bureaucratic-statist control over the lives of individual citizens, but they want to keep poor countries poor, too, by denying them the very means the industrial and post-industrial nations used to become wealthy. It’s no wonder that both China and India have refused to sign on to the global-warming farce; the measures the alarmists demand we take to fight a problem that does not exist would absolutely derail their economic development.

In the great scheme of things, this is just another small crack in the vaunted scientific consensus. By itself, it means little. But, the more cracks appear, the sooner comes the day when the AGW cathedral collapses.

via WUWT

UPDATE: Is the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming the Beauvais Cathedral of our time? Via Dan Collins.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 Responses to “Physicist throws global warming under the bus”

Comments

  1. steveegg says:

    Oh snap. Of course, you do realize the next step will be to call for the decimation of humans to combat Gorebal “Warming” (or whatever they’re calling it this week).

  2. Phineas says:

    Nah. They’ve already hit that point: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. ~:>

  3. Neo says:

    Carbon is used as a lever to create a global energy/industrial policy.
    The 1st world pays the 2nd and 3rd world not to industrialize. No wonder India and China wouldn’t join in their fun.

  4. Carlos says:

    I’m real sure this was not approved by the East Anglia University control group; therefore, this guy is to be discredited and any reference to him in the future will be in disdain, and he can’t be counted as a serious scientist any more because, as we all know, the question of AGW has been solved by the acclaim of all serious scientists, don’tcha know?

  5. Jo says:

    This guy better watch out. They’ll find his body on the lawn of the Capitol somewhere ‘mysteriously’ dead. The first sacrifice to the voluntary extinction initiative.

  6. bico says:

    “it is important to keep in mind that this represents an amount of CO2 release comparable to or somewhat less than the CO2 released by simple breathing from humankind and its domestic animals”
    The big difference is of course that the CO2 you and I, and the animals (and for that matter plants) respire, does not originate from fossil sources. It originates from recent photosynthesis and hence forms part of a closed loop : atmospheric CO2 -> photosynthesis in autotrophes -> heterotrophes -> respiration -> atmospheric CO2.
    Hence the net effect on atmospheric compisition of the CO2 that you and I breathe out is much smaller than the net effect of CO2 originating from the combustion of fossil fuels.

  7. nina says:

    When I see BO in an electric smart car,Pelosi in a bus to Kalifornia and Reed in a kayak I’ll be glad to drive one the stupid cars.

  8. Carlos says:

    In other words, nina, you’re not willing to ever buy or drive one, right?

    And bico, your argument is terribly flawed, but worse than that it is intentionally misleading. Why not clean it up, use something that is a real argument, and come on back after the kool aid.

  9. bico says:

    I look forward to reading where you see flaws in my post and some clarification on what you think is misleading about it