Censorship
CO2 The Blog
Monday, 2 November 2009
![Since the 6th October, as many will be aware, I have been posting links to my book CO2 The Debate Is Not Over, up on www.prisonplanet.com. Last week I began posting links on www.infowars.com and www.wattsupwiththat.com. I thought you might like to know that in just 4 weeks it has been downloaded by over 20,000 people. So I would like to thank Alex Jones and the Prison Planet and Infowars people for not censoring my posts.
I would like to mention however that I cannot say the same about www.wattsupwiththat.com as they have censored me again and again. This censorship has come in two forms. They have snipped the link to my book that I always leave at the bottom of my posts and in its place the forum moderator has left the following message: [snip - please no more use of WUWT as self promotion ]. In view of the fact that my book is about exposing AGW fraud by focusing on the subject of CO2, I consider this as a very strong form of censorship and find it strange coming from a web site apparently dedicated to the subject of exposing AGW fraud.
The other interesting development which preceded the above has been the censoring of a post I tried to upload repeatedly on the subject of Lord Christopher Monckton who as every one will be aware recently gave a speech in the US and also appeared on Glen Beck.
My views on Monckton are based on the fact that although what he says is all factual and very correct as far as I can see, he still refuses to talk about the very subject that could stop this AGW scam dead in its tracks and that of course is the subject of CO2 itself. He often uses the term "greenhouse gasses" and this alone should ring alarm bells for anyone paying attention. There are NO green gasses and there is certainly no greenhouse effect and Monckton of all people knows this. Monckton as every body knows was science advisor to Thatcher when that Government dug up the John Tyndall "greenhouse gas" corpse and brought it back from the dead. Also of note is the fact that on the very page, Monckton on Glen Beck (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/#comment-216240), that I tried to post my views about him, Monckton himself has left a very telling post of his own under the very Lordly forum handle of Monckton of Brenchley, in which he firstly thanks his good friend Anthony Watt for posting up the video clips and then continues his post with a clear example of the exact kind of misleading disinformation that I have accused him of in my censored post. He continues on and I quote:
Once again, very warmest thanks to my good friend Anthony Watts for posting up the video-clips of the entire Glenn Beck show so very quickly, and to the many kind commentators who enjoyed the show.
In response to the enquirer who wanted the economic math from the Lord-Board in segment D, here it is:
Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion (which Beck and Bolton had more than a little difficulty with), and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit. – Monckton of Brenchley
To any one not paying attention what he is doing here is playing loose with the facts. He leaves the reader with the impression that 30 billion tons of CO2 is the global HUMAN output and fails to make clear that HUMANS only produce around 6-8 billion tons per year. Or that this figure of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 is pretty much entirely caused by natural emission. Also his assertions of year on year CO2 increases are completely invalid as they do not factor in any of the natural CO2 sinks which exist in nature. Without these sinks being included into the equation it is pointless and even deceptive to talk about CO2 levels.
The point is that the figure of 30 billion tons no matter which percentage is natural and which human derived, is actually just CO2 being recycled from within the system. Therefore the amount of CO2 in the Earth system is never going exceed a level that it hasn't already reached in the past. No new CO2 is being added from an external source. But if I know this and I have never been science adviser to the British Government and am never likely to be, what is Lord Monckton’s excuse?
Following is the censored post that WUWT will not allow.
Quick analysis of Monckton, can he be trusted?:
0 K being absolute zero,
Oxygen is ice below 54.36 K
Nitrogen is ice below 63.15 K
CO2 is ice below 194.65 K
Which of these three gasses is the LEAST POWERFUL absorber of heat?
Answer: CO2 by a long way. N and O are both four times more powerful at absorbing heat than CO2.
Oxygen and Nitrogen together make up 99% of the atmosphere.
CO2 makes up only 0.03811%.
How much will CO2 influence atmospheric temperature compared to Oxygen and Nitrogen combined?
Answer: Compared with N and O the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures at these levels is totally insignificant. In other words CO2 has no baring on atmospheric temperature worth talking about.
Do you think Monckton is ignorant of these facts?
Answer: Of course not.
Monckton has danced a merry dance around these simple truths which if he had addressed from the start, would have sunk this AGW fraud many years ago. Considering he was science adviser to Thatcher around the time she brought this John Tyndall "greenhouse effect" corpse back from the dead, I think it is fair to say that he should be taking credit for something. But not for exposing the AGW fraud.
Conclusion: Monckton is a New World Order Gatekeeper, and therefore cannot be trusted.
Remember CO2 is a trace gas at 0.03811% of the atmosphere. The total human contribution to this trace in the atmosphere is 1% of 0.03811% or around 4 ppmv of 385+ ppmv. Looking at these figures the one thing that becomes glaringly obvious is that not only is our tiny contribution to this tiny trace gas never going to effect temperature but neither is this tiny trace gas CO2 itself ever going to be able to effect global temperature.
So my point is simply, why doesn't Monckton use these figures as I have done, to put AGW fraud back in the same hole from which he himself dug it up and re-animated it in the first place?
The final question I have about Monckton and Anthony Watt for that mater is this. Are we to believe that the former science adviser to the Thatcher Government and good friend of the author and editor in chief of WUWT would not be fully conversant with the science of mass mind control?
Think about that one for a moment.
So again I say Monckton must not be trusted. He offers only scare stories and no solutions.
Don't believe AGW is a fraud, Know it!](49CCE5E6-9043-4304-B198-1B53AD26DFF1_files/shapeimage_1.png)
