Carbon - a pollutant or an essential of life?

29 Apr 2011

Over at on April 29th we learn that some AGW doomsayers have said the devastating Alabama tornadoes are a result of 'C02 pollution' rather than other factors - but incredibly, at it seems that some people really do think volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are induced by global warming and rising levels of C02. Worse still, some people are so convinced carbon is a pollutant they think they should try and avoid it altogether - even in food.

At we learn that pulling the wool over peoples eyes is all part of the doomsayer message - even when it comes to fiddling around with temperature and C02 graphs. A little trick is employed to make the forecasts of the high priest of AGW (you know who) look much better than those of a climate scientist who has come out against AGW spin. The models used by said high priest are based on C02 - when that is removed the graph line falls flat. What the little trick ends up proving is the opposite to what was intended. Instead of showing the AGW climate scientist models were more reliable than the sceptic position they only prove that the models are devoid of natural effects such as the sun and ocean cycles.

At is on the same general theme, a post by Ira Glickstein on the first issue of the new journal Nature Climate Change and a paper that quotes a top climate scientist and IPCC lead author that inadverdently infers climate models are wrong but some are more useful than others. This unintentional slippage seems to show that the models are missing some vital information affecting the weather - and in the long term, climate. In this instance it is the fact that clouds play no role in the models alluded to in the post - a remarkable omission. No wonder AGW climate scientists do not wish to make their data and methodology open to the public, yet alone the computer code - people would fall around laughing.