American Thinker Bombs Over CO2 Junk Science Claims
I hate to criticize American Thinker. They are part of the solution, not the problem, in combating the 30-year globalist plan to browbeat us minions into surrendering to de-industrialization and mass population control. But here goes….
I was irked to read the reason why American Thinker’s JR Dunn would reject the latest excellent submission The Climate Crap from an author, Anthony Bright-Paul, they have published several times before on a subject that is critical to exposing the Big Lie about carbon dioxide being the root cause of so-called man-made global warming.
Bright-Paul and AT’s Dunn have reached an impasse and it is symptomatic of the core problem 
independent applied scientists and engineers – we ‘Slayers’ at Principia Scientific International – have been bemoaning for the last decade. We cover the issue in our new book. The Sky Dragon Slayers Victory Lap.
I would class the good folk at American Thinker to be a cut above the average. But I learn than Mr Dunn has relied on nothing more than an instant online search to glean all the ‘science’ he needs as a media gatekeeper to smack down Bright-Paul.
This anecdote shows just how far we have sunk in an age when anyone with the most basic keyboard skills can become an instant ‘expert’. Any one at all – from an indolent spotty teen to an Alzheimer’s addled pensioner can, in their world-wide web omniscience, knock into a cocked hat a century’s worth of robust applied science.
All on the reassuring say so of Mr Google. Self-satisfied and god-like these gatekeepers to truth will terminate discussion. Brainwashed by the alphabet BS. We are in dark times, indeed.
Case in point:
Bright-Paul, a long-time skeptic who insists that carbon dioxide is NOT our climate’s control knob correctly wrote that this trace gas has been used in industry for over a century as a supreme coolant gas for industrial refrigeration.
Not only does CO2 emit heat in 3 nanoseconds (literally, the blink of an eye), it is actually crucial plant food (not a pollutant) and far better for the environment than those nasty CFC’s and HFC’s that cool modern refrigerators and which allegedly caused the ‘ozone hole’ – remember that crock of hoo-ha which was a ‘dry run’ for global warming?
The clue that American Thinker aren’t thinking as much as they claim was when Dunn’s pompous email reply to Bright-Paul began:
“Looking at the first link on Google we find….” – J.R. Dunn, American Thinker
(head in hands now)
Anyone who just relies on Google – a well-known propaganda organ for globalists – for information about this much-maligned trace atmospheric gas (CO2) is clearly someone who lacks intellectual rigor. Mr American Non-Thinker (who should have known better) then regaled Bright-Paul with his new-found snippet of pseudo-science nonsense:
“In the early days of refrigeration the two refrigerants in common use were ammonia and carbon dioxide. Both were problematic – ammonia is toxic and carbon dioxide requires extremely high pressures (from around 30 to 200 atmospheres!)
And that is that. It was used in a limited fashion for a brief period until better gasses came along. It’s not in use as a refrigerant at this time, for very good reasons: 30 to 300 atmospheres translates as 441 to 2,940 pounds per square inch, which means that any refrigerator using CO2 would qualify a high-explosive device.” – J.R. Dunn, American Thinker
Did you get that?
A “high-explosive device” no less. God forbid any sane manufacturer would put bombs in people’s cars!
At this point all you good people who know a thing or two about mechanics will know what’s coming next.
Let’s take your average commercial passenger aircraft or family car. The working parts of the engines of these complex machines must withstand 14,000 pounds plus of pressure per square inch. That is 31.7 times higher than the base pressure cited by Dunn for a “high explosive device.” What an idiot!
Warning: above image depicts the large ‘bomb’ fitted to standard motor cars – beware!
So, Mr American Non-Thinker, are we all raving loony suicide bombers every time we take to the highways or the skies?
And as for the wisdom of not using CO2 in this day and age to keep the interior of our cars cool, let’s see what the brightest and best car designers in the world have to say on the subject.
In that crazy country of fools Germans are very proud of the car maker Mercedes. This world-leading car maker has even made the bold move to start switching over to installing CO2 air conditioners in their luxury cars since 2015.
So, not only are these reckless Germans continuing to install highly-dangerous compression engines to their cars they are now installing a very deadly second explosive device in the air con! Who’d have thunk it, Mr Dunn??
See: https://newatlas.com/mercedes-co2-air-conditioning-production-cars/40020/
American Thinker? Not so sure!
This is why letting Arts’ majors make decisions about which claims made in science articles are valid or not has left so many qualified scientists tearing their hair out. The fact we have endured 30 years of downright mass misinformation in the media about climate change is because our society simply does not educate enough people to a high enough level in the hard sciences.
Our world is run by opinionated [and corrupt] idiots.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
I comment here because you as editor of PSI placed your excellent essay, the excellent essay of Dr Klaus L E Kaiser and the excellent essay of Anthony Bright-Paul together this morning for the readers of PSI. Now I will wait to see how many comments these most, most excellent essays will generate and to read what any comments might be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
After praising your essay, I must take issue with your comment: “The fact we have endured 30 years of downright mass misinformation in the media about climate change is because our society simply does not educate enough people to a high enough level in the hard sciences.”
I am well aware that you believe that Dr. before a name or Ph.D. after a name makes that person ‘super’ intelligent. So you add Ph.D. (Chemistry) after my name as you post my essays. I do not submit my essay to you with anything more than my name and the year I wrote the essay. For I agree with those who have stated that Ph.D. could mean ‘piled higher and deeper’.
After all, many of the 97% have Ph.D. and a hard science after their names. The great problem I see in science education is that I speculate that very few of those scientists with Ph.D. and a hard science after their names have ever read Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences for nearly 3 centuries. For until 1914 there had not been a readily available English translation of this book for about 2 centuries. And I have found no evidence that in 1914 and after, that many scientists rushed to buy a copy or rushed to the library to stand in line (a joke) to get to read the library’s copy of this book.
Hence, it was about 20 years after I earned by my doctorate (took 6 years of graduate school in the hard science of physical chemistry) that I first read Galileo’s book which had given us the fundamental foundation of two new sciences. So, how could we practice the two new sciences which Galileo had founded?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom O
| #
Dear Jerry (Piled higher and deeper). I seriously doubt that the intent of the statement that “The fact we have endured 30 years of downright mass misinformation in the media about climate change is because our society simply does not educate enough people to a high enough level in the hard sciences.” has anything to do with being piled higher and deeper. It would seem to have everything to do with the fact that “average Joe and Joan” do not learn any science any more as they are vomited through the school system. I agree with you that the “piled higher and deeper” set have lead us merrily along the road to caveman status, but only because ignorant (of science) people have been told you all stand on a pedestal and should be believed. We are never told that the pedestal is piled higher and deeper, too.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O and otherPSI Readers,
When I was much younger I seldom read the preface of a book. I have since become wiser. I have frequently quoted from Lewis Elzevir’s preface to Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences by Galileo Galilei which his company published in the requested Italian language. Which I credit Henry Crew and Alfonsonso de Salvio as translating to the English language in 1914. But I have never quoted the first portion of Elsevir’s preface.
“Since society is held together by the mutual services which men render one to another, and since to this end the arts and sciences have largely contributed, investigations in these fields have always been held in great esteem and have been highly regarded by our wise forefathers. The larger the utility and excellence of the inventions, the greater has been the honor and praise bestowed upon the inventors. Indeed, men have even deified them and have united in the attempt to perpetuate the memory of their benefactors by the bestowal of this supreme honor.
“Praise and admiration are likewise due to those clever intellects who, confining their attention to the known, have discovered and corrected fallacies and errors in many and many a proposition enunciated by men of distinction and accepted for ages as fact. Although these men have only pointed out falsehood and have not replaced it by truth, they are nevertheless worthy of commendation when we consider the well-known difficulty which led the prince of orators exclaim: Utinam tam facile possem vera reperire, quam falsa convincere. [Cicero] And indeed, these latest centuries merit this praise because it is during them that the arts and sciences, discovered by the ancients, have been reduced to so great and constantly increasing perfection through the investigations and experiments of clear-seeing minds. This development is particularly evident in the case of the mathematical sciences. Here, without mentioning various men who have achieved success, we must without hesitation and with the unanimous approval of scholars assign the first place to Galileo Galilei, Member of the Academy of the Lincei. This he deserves not only because he has effectively demonstrated fallacies in many of our current conclusions, as is amply shown by his published works, but also because by means of the telescope (invented in this country [Holland] but greatly perfected by him) he has discovered the four satellites of Jupiter, has shown us the true character of the Milky Way, and has made us acquainted with spots on the Sun, with the rough and cloudy portions of the lunar surface, with the threefold nature of Saturn, with the phases of Venus and with the physical character of comets. These matters were entirely unknown to the ancient astronomers and philosophers; so that we may truly say that he has restored to the world the science of astronomy and has presented it in a new light.”
Maybe I might be wrong, but I believe this portion of Elsevir’s preface might prompt some PSI readers to get this English translation of Galileo’s book and read what Galileo actually wrote in his book that so few have actually read.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
As a biochemist, I was amazed to find that none of my fellow PhD’ had ever read an entire Biochemistry textbook. How can you claim to her a biochemist when there are whole sections of it that you have never really examined?
So, I read Lehninger’s Biochemistry back in the 1970s from Preface to the end twice, outlining it on paper the second time—long winter evenings on an island in Maine with kerosene lamps and a fireplace, great fun. I learned more than I expected as the writer’s style and descriptions communicate the writer’s overall philosophy. It was very enlightening and has proven valuable in many ways. One should never stop studying one way or another. Now, I edit research papers for publication and have a great time understanding research results that have not even been published yet.
Along that line, my Spring project is to read Darwin’s famous tome.
Reply
geran
| #
Ammonia, in the right concentrations, can be explosive. CO2 is not explosive. CO2 is the resultant of combustion.
And John, please allow this revision to your ending sentence: “Our world is run by opinionated [and corrupt] idiots.”
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Geran, agreed,.thanks
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Hi John,
Do you think the following articles are worthy of PSI, or not?
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/what-global-warming/
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/measuring-geothermal-1/
https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/
I think the last is a crucial paradigm shift.
Alarmists and too many skeptics implicitly embrace Fourier’s geothermal denial.
Thank you, -Zoe
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Hi Zoe, I have followed your contributions in the debate and encourage you to send any and all submissions to my inbox. The address is [email protected]
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
This is a great shame, American Thinker has published some great articles debunking aspects of the climate scam. You now have to wonder if they have been got at and threatened with something if they don’t adopt the alarmist line.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
I have a poor memory about names so I had to check if you were the Andy, whose good comments I have read. So I see you are. So I expect even if you disagree with what I write, you will not be too harsh.
A critical issue is ‘education’ as John has recognized. I read: “Bruce Deitrick Price is a novelist, artist, poet, and education reformer. He graduated with Honors in English Literature from Princeton and lived for many years in Manhattan where he ran a graphic design business.” (Wikipedia, maybe) I researched him because it seems he is American Thinker’s education reformer. And it seems I was right, based upon his ideas that I had read there, that he didn’t have much experience as teacher.
The American Chemical Society has a Chemical Education division. And in the later 1980’s it became obvious from the top (Nobel Prize Winner teaching introductory chemistry students at Harvard) to the bottom (me, a one person chemistry department teaching introductory chemistry students at Hibbing (MN) Community College) that our students were no longer able to perform at the same high level they once had. So we did a lot of sole searching as to what we might do to reverse this trend.
However, in the 70’s, we had a president at HCC who paid, as a staff development activity, a professor, John Roueche, at the University of Texas, Austin who specialized in community college education. For Professor Roueche held a million dollar endowed chair there; so evidently someone considered he knew something about community college education.
The first thing he told us was than many (most?) students came to a community college, at that time, to fail. Such was their self-esteem as learners.
But the second thing he told us was immensely more important. It was that about a third of the ‘A average’ high school student entering the University of California, Berkeley, at that time, had to take a noncredit English course because their reading levels were too low for them to be able to pass Berkeley’s required English Composition course or any college level course, anywhere, which required reading. For our courses at a community college were suppose to be the equivalent of Harvard’s or of the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities.
The reason I had questioned Bruce Deitrick Price’s teaching experience was he was critical of the ‘progressives’ pushing sight reading instead of phonetics where the student was to taught how to ‘sound out’ each word so he/she could read by saying words. After all, most students came to the 1st grade speaking and understanding spoken words.
Back in the late 40’s and so on I was taught to sight read. So by the time of high school English, I could read 600+ word per minute with good comprehension. Far faster than I could speak words. Toward the end of my teaching career, I gave students short reading assignments in class and observed when they looked up after completing it. It was obvious that most were not reading any faster than they could speak.
Therefore, when I gave a homework assignments to read this chapter and answer the assigned questions and solve the problems at the end of the chapter, the reading assignment took at least 2, if not 3, times the time it should have required.
Price is correct that many things have been tried to improve mathematical and physical science learning when it became obvious to most all that students were not learning as they once had in the USA public education system. And many of these attempts were wrong (failures).
But Galileo had it right: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” Which, I believe, is what Galileo attempted to demonstrate in Two New Sciences.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Jerry, I noticed the same thing about reading when I was in senior school. I had always been interested in reading and writing since I was in junior school, where it was called ‘Comprehension’. By the time I reached my last year in senior school when I was 16 in 1978, I found I was always one of the first to finish reading something in class. I didn’t think anything of it at the time, I just assumed I was a fast reader. It seems fairly obvious to me now that standards of literacy have gone down, and words that seem ‘normal’ to me are unknown to many youngsters. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are now dreadful. I had to explain penultimate to someone a few weeks ago, and the ‘double-negative’ seems incomprehensible to many now. I’m sure you’re familiar with the expression ‘I ain’t seen no-one’, which means you have seen everyone, but try explaining that to teens and they look at you gone out.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Bruce,
First, you very much for entering into Andy and my conversation. For you have a much greater pulpit than either Andy or I, so I sure Andy, as I, greatly appreciate that you have come down off that pulpit to share your additional thoughts with us and the readers of PSI.
Bruce you just wrote: “I have never been a teacher; and I am proud to say I come from outside this wayward field.” What arrogance!! Could you explain how children are to become ‘educated’ if not by the efforts of teachers?
And relative to teaching reading, it seems clear that we agree that there are two ‘methods’ of emphasis: sight reading and phonics.
When you wrote that progressives were pushing sight reading I could not believe because, while I was a teacher, phonics was the method used to teach 1st or 2nd graders how to read newspapers and probably your articles. For they could ‘sound’ out the letters and say the word.
But as Andy remarked that there is something more important than just saying the words. It is ‘Comprehension’. So, as a former teacher, I will give you a comprehension test from a book by R. G. Le Tourneau titled Mover of Men and Mountains. For R. G. was the inventor the ‘big’ modern earth moving machines. For in this book he explained how it was that his last formal education ceased after the 7th grade, which he failed badly.
R.G. wrote: “I had one odd experience when I was in the fifth grade. Before that I had always had just enough black marks to overcome the red ones and get me “passed” from one grade to the next. In my fifth year I suddenly discovered arithmetic made sense. Geography was not just some pink, green, and yellow areas on a map, but real places, perhaps with palm trees instead of snow. [he was going to school in Duluth MN] And reading–if you read from on paragraph to the next instead of spelling out one word at a time, you could get a lot of fascinating information from books. I was so amazed at this sudden awakening that I read through all the books in the fifth grade and most of the sixth grade’s books too.
“My teacher was delighted, my folks were stunned, and on this great wave of enlightenment I was shipped over the sixth grade and into the seventh. What a mistake that was for me. The seventh graders had put in a long, earnest year on the subjects I had skimmed over so swiftly, and when it came to reciting, I wasn’t in their league. Maybe with time and understanding, I might have caught up, but pampering is one thing a promising student didn’t get then. Instead, he was usually pounded to a pulp as a sissy, a fate from which I was spared because I was already approaching six feet, and was the biggest hulk in the class. That only made it harder on me. I was not only the biggest in the class, but also the dumbest. We call what I had an inferiority complex today, and I was crawling with it. I quit trying entirely, and came to hate school with an almost physical violence. I wanted to break windows and kick out walls.”
R. G. wrote this in 1960 when I was freshman at a university. I ask: Where were you, in 1960? I ask: What have you comprehended from R. G.’s story?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Bruce Deitrick Price
| #
I have never been a teacher; and I am proud to say I come from outside this wayward field..My specialty is explaining the many dysfunctional theories and methods found throughout K-12. Sight-words are the main gimmick but there are many others.. My most recent article in American Thinker (Jan 9) summarizes what I call “The War against Children”:: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/k12_the_war_against_children.html
As for phonics there is now a return to this common-sense approach. See “K-12: Phonics Is Winning.” https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/10/k12_phonics_is_winning.html.
If you want an article on any of these subjects, let me know. Or tell people to read “Saving K-12– What happened to our public schools? And how do we fix them?”
Reply
chris
| #
The reason why they didn’t use CO2 as a refrigerant for so long was because of how cheap and abundant it is.
Reply