Carbon Dioxide is NOT a ‘pollutant’ it is essential for Life
Image: iStock
Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada: Carbon Dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but a Giver of Life.
Dear Prime Minister,
Presumably, you’ve welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the “carbon tax”.
It never fails to amaze me how “climate change” is being equated with “carbon dioxide” (commonly referred to simply as “carbon”) or even termed “carbon pollution.” In fact, carbon dioxide (chemical symbol “CO2”) is the substance that is absolutely vital for all life on Earth!
The ruling only mentions “carbon” and “pollution.” That’s simply more misunderstanding, confusion, and “politics.”
Yes, “climate change” has been going on (up and down) ever since this planet came into existence. Just 22,000 years ago, the whole eastern part of Canada was covered with a 1 to 3 km thick sheet of ice. Since then, over a period of around 15,000 years, it just melted away with natural “climate change.”
Does any sane person really think it was because of some camp-fires by the few earthlings then inhabiting the continents? And, why should that natural process have stopped once the ice was gone? Furthermore, analyses of deep ice core samples showed that the carbon dioxide rose well after the ice began melting, with a time lag of nearly 1000 years.
The current cult-like desire for “decarbonisation” of mankind’s energy needs is fostering severe negative consequences, especially for future generations – and has no effect on “climate change.”
Yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), upholding the legitimacy of the “carbon tax,” i.e. the law of 2018, entitled “Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act”: is a travesty.
As a chemist, I surmise that the law itself, by its title alone, is a travesty!
While the SCC may not have had any choice to rule differently, in terms of its legality, the law itself is based on misleading/faulty language and interpretation of scientific facts.
Of course, few of the learned justices have had the knowledge or training required to understand chemistry, physics, biology, ecology, geology, and related fields; nor do most of our illustrious politicians.
The ruling only mentions “carbon” and “pollution.” That’s simply more misunderstanding, confusion, and “politics.”
The undeniable fact is that “carbon dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but an absolutely vital trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, currently at around 0.04% of all its components.
Undisputed Scientific Facts
- Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, all life on Earth would cease to exist!
- Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, no oxygen would be produced; CO2 is/has been the sole source of molecular oxygen (that we breathe in with each breath)!
- Without the steady supply of CO2 from the thousands of active volcanoes and fumaroles, life on Earth would have already come to a standstill.
- Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and (most) fresh waters would become “acidified.”
- Without the use of carbon-type resources (like coal, oil, and natural gas), the world cannot continue.
- Without continued reliance on carbon-energy, much of Canada’s population would simply freeze to death in the next few winters.
The above statements are all undisputed scientific facts, known for decades/centuries already!
Best regards,
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
See more here: canadafreepress.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Barry
| #
Thank you for taking the time to write that brain dead idiot that rules this country. I’m sure it falls on deaf ears but may bring a tinge of doubt to someone else. The unfortunate thing is the whole co2 thing has nothing to do with climate it is simply a way to control the masses. Like all good cults it isn’t based on science simply emotion.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Book for moron politicians & laymen interested in the climate fraud:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History
by climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.
only 121 pages, well illustrated, reveals all & names those behind the fraud & their motives.
JD.
Reply
Andy
| #
I’ve read that one, Tim lays it all out very clearly.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
The AGW Alarmists have no intention of trying to understand the science that debunks the fraudulent claims that CO2 is a pollutant and causes global warming.
They will steadfastly ignore any debates on the science as the have no interest in facts, only the constant push of their political agenda.
We have to vote them out of office. That is the only thing that will work.
Reply
Andy
| #
That letter will inevitably be ignored and filed under B for Bin.
Reply
Artelia
| #
As long as we still have sufficient oxygen, the levels of CO2 are not of grave concern. The CO2 will fall to the earth with the rain and it will fall into our oceans. How does the CO2 affect our oceans? We have many people terrified about global climate change and we also have geo-engineering. Alongside this geo-engineering, there is solar radiation management where aircraft spray the skies in what is falsely claimed to be contrails. One can see how the haze that develops from this has a metallic sheen and there are reports that aluminium sulphate nano particles are in the haze.
Loads of CO2 is being created whilst gas and oil are used and we no longer have huge forests to be our lungs. It would be worthwhile to consider how to deal with this huge amount of CO2, so as not to upset the equilbriums of our world and to assuage the fears of so many. The answer, which is very environmentally friendly is to have hedgerows which include trees, around our fields which we farm and to further sequestre CO2 in the form of humus and bio-char, into the soil. This works well with farming animals, mixed farming, organic and biodynamic farming. Fields should be covered in green manures which should be ploughed in, to create more humus, thus sequestring more and more CO2 and their should be crop rotations with animal grazing. Homes should be encouraged to have shrubs, trees, hedging, climbers and plants. Imagine all of the gardens being properly used. Waste spaces should be beautified with trees and shrubs and we should have coppices for firewood. Volunteers, people doing community service, our vets and prisoner volunteers can all be involved with this. It helps against floods, water run off, river and estuaries silting, landslides, and even droughts. This does not work with pesticides biocides, intensive or factory farming, and mass use of artificial fertilizers and nitrates.
It does mean that our water will be cleaner, groundwater, drinking water, river water and water flowing into the seas. What is not to like? Please support this for our health and the health of our planet. We can use the fearmongering that has been generated to make our countryside better, more beautiful, more welcoming to wildlife and birds and our foods and water more pure. Our soils really do have the ability to hold an unbelievably huge amount of CO2 and the trees and hedgerows around the farms do too. Please push my ideas forward as a solution to sequestring CO2 in a very harmonious way. As so many forests have been removed from our world, we could do with more CO2 sequestred into our lands. If those who feign concern re CO2 were really concerned, they would already have implemented the measures I propose. Doing something so harmonious and wholesome would be a way to use up that fear and concern which is not going away soon.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
Unfortunately, Artelia, your premise is completely wrong. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is not in any way controlled by plant life. It is in fact controlled by the sea which covers 2/3rds of of the surface of the earth and the sea temp is, in turn, controlled by the sun. What you should be concerned about here is that the sun is probably going into a grand Maunder minimum which if it progresses long enough will cause the co2 levels to fall and if they fall far enough there will be a reduction in the growth of flora on land and sea causing a great risk to the survival of all oxygen breathing land creatures.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Klaus and hopefully PSI Readers,
You were a founder of PSI which was founded to give scientists such as you, me, and other authors a public forum in which to share observations and measurements which refute the prediction that the measured air temperature would be about 33C (58F) lower if there was no carbon dioxide gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Which proposed idea has become known as the greenhouse effect (GHE). And the GHE in turn has become the fundamental basis of the idea known as human caused Global Warming (AGW) and that of human caused Climate Change (ACC).
Since PSI articles were not accepted by the established scientific community’s journals, from the beginning, the articles published by PSI could not be considered ‘good science’. I do not know what the policy was at the founding of PSI; but I know the policy is now anything goes because John O’Sullivan (editor) and PSI advisors do not claim to have the ability to judge what is correct and what is not.
For it was known that the established journals had a formal procedure “peer review” to prevent the publication of incorrect ideas and the PSI founders knew that this procedure was being used to prevent the publication of their articles. However, from the time of Galileo there was confusion about the criteria that was needed to absolutely refute an incorrect (wrong) scientific idea. For Galileo in ‘Two New Science’ clearly demonstrated that reproducible observed facts was not sufficient to absolutely refute an incorrect scientific idea. Instead, after he had simply demonstrated with observed, reproducible, facts that “bodies ten times as heavy did not fall 10 times fast than the body of the lesser mass; he had to support these simple observations with reasoned arguments to establish this idea was absolutely wrong.
For beginning in the beginning of the 19th Century it became obvious that there were many scientists of all brands who did not recognize that observation was THE critical component of NATURAL SCIENCE. Instead, reason and argument became the foundation of HUMAN SCIENCE as it had been since the time Aristotle and his fellow Greek philosophers. For an observable fact is that one does not need to be ‘highly intelligent’ to see. That quite ‘common’ people can ‘see’ as well as any ‘brilliant’ human philosopher.
Now an observed fact is that PSI articles are peer reviewed by PSI Reader’s comments which are not censured and more than PSI articles are. And I believe that few established journals allow their readers to publicly comment in their journals.
Klaus, I wrote this long introduction to state I must peer review (dispute) each of your six “Undisputed Scientific Facts” without greatly offending you. For I do respect your experience and knowledge. But I often personally see that the obvious is the most difficult to actually see.
And now after reading the first—“Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, all life on Earth would cease to exist!”—i finally see that first the plants would die and stop making cellulose, hydrocarbons etc. and all other life would eventually starve to death after all the stored ‘organic matter’ was consumed. So I finally have seen that the first is a undisputed scientific fact as you stated it was.
However, this is not case with the second: “Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, no oxygen would be produced; CO2 is/has been the sole source of molecular oxygen (that we breathe in with each breath)!”
We know that the earth’s atmosphere is now composed of about 70% molecular (diatomic) nitrogen and 30% molecular (diatomic) oxygen. I read that the atmosphere of Mars is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (95%), molecular nitrogen (2.8%) and argon (2%). And it is even more common knowledge that the atmosphere of Venus is primarily carbon dioxide without any molecular (diatomic) oxygen. These observations supports your claim that without plants there would be no molecular (diatomic) oxygen after all the natural molecular oxygen was consumed by life which must die once there is no oxygen to breathe.
However, how do you explain that the earth’s atmosphere is composed of 70% molecular (diatomic) nitrogen? Did plants also produce this molecular (diatomic) nitrogen? Note the observed fact (I believe, trust) both planets on either side of the Earth have minor amount os diatomic nitrogen in their atmosphere’s. Earth is unique in another way and it is that its surface is covered with molecular (triatomic) water in great quantity. Whose molecular mass is even less that molecular (diatomic) carbon monoxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and fluorine.
Now, I have not read how the gaseous planets of Jupiter etc. were formed because there is a understanding that the atoms and molecules of the gas phase of matter are naturally trying to fill all space because of their random, perpetual movements. But we explain the presence of the gaseous planets (low density) by the action of the planet’s gravitational attraction, due to the great combined mass of these gases, acting upon the tiny masses of the individual molecular (diatomic) molecules, thereby preventing these tiny molecules from filling al space.
So I do not believe that you have any observation evidence that the Earth, before plants, did not have an Natural atmosphere composed of natural 70% nitrogen and 30% diatomic oxygen molecules. Hence, your second claim that there is no molecular (diatomic) oxygen molecules is without any observable fact and your statement clearly is not a undisputiable scientific fact.
Now, there are some who claim to be able to explain the impossible. But not Newton, who admitted that he did not know the cause of gravity because he saw no phenomenon that pointed toward what gravity’s cause might be. But I consider not you; you just failed to see the obvious.
I will wait for your reply before scientifically refuting the remainder of your “Undisputed Scientific Facts”.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply