If we don’t rebel, if we’re not physically in an active rebellion, then it’s spiritual death.” ― Chris Hedges

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

NO Carbon Tax for greedy yiddish khazar Bankers! CO2 the Truth:

How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the answers that follow.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government, pseudo scientist shills and Green groups.
The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

In the following paragraphs is collation of the respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well, to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in the medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.

Questions and Answers:

What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%; the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between, 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer: is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.
We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!

Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.

Q5. Is CO2 a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping Esky’s (portable ice box), in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

This picture depicts two large cooling towers and one much smaller chimney typical of what you would see at an electricity power station.
The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.

Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.

3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no effect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.

Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following paragraphs.

The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.

The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate.

It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.

The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow fall disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.

Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the latter half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.

Polls on Climate Change.

Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!

Popular beliefs are not fact.

The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the Millenium Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.

A Carbon Tax.

Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no effect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.

All scientific Data and Text provided by Gregg D Thompson
Climate Researcher, Astronomer, Environmentalist, Author of two science books, Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
Author of science magazine articles.

Fill out our petition to Stop Gillards Labor Government Carbon Tax... 

Please copy and paste the following petition and mail it to Julia Gillard pretender to the Office of the Prime Minister of Australia:

Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House



Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House

I do not want a Carbon Tax as I do not believe a tax will help the environment!
Top of Form

Name *
E-mail Address *
Suburb *
Post Code *


* Required fields






Saladin said...

Oh dear my friend, you do understand that sleepy people HATE waking up, right?

veritas6464 said...

Saladin,...If I have to tie tin cans to the tails of all the rats in the sewer, then scatter them throughout the streets, then I will,


Thank you for commenting,

A'salaam alai'kum


Anonymous said...

With all due respect I think that the greenhouse effect it real, and part of their larger plan.

Hear me out.

By melting the icecaps, greenland & antarctica are exposed for exploitation. The greenhouse effect was proposed in 1896, and it's been seen how it could benefit the world (at the cost of a billion or more lives) to have access to all the resources.

The great southern land was never just Australia, but Antarctica as well. That's why the Americans & Japanese were in competition over it. The chinese have had 1000s of years of history long before Australia was settled, and had ambitions.

The original Yellow Peril wasn't a racist thing, it was fear of a resurgent Han empire to compete with the the Commonwealth. This is well before Japan was a threat.

Japan was built up by the Commonwealth, and despite the ambitions of an emperor, was a partner before and after WW2.

The Royal Society long ago advocated the benefits of global warming in that it would have a major impact on countries surrounding the Himalayas. It would essentially tweak the water cycle so storms would be more effective in their role or refreshing the biosphere. Go on google earth, note the river systems where hydrolectric dams are being constructed.

Rain water is quite literally manna from heaven, it's the basis of all our life.

Global Warming is Terraforming. Cultures that don't adapt are collateral damage in a darwinian project.

As much as people should read 1984, they should read Dune. This conflict over resources between powerful houses of oligarches goes back 1000s of years. The current phase of Oil war will go on for decades.

Theres no coincidence that the UNSC resolution is 1973.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Anon,...Excellent read. Intriguing; Show me some sources (links), use a handle (make up a name) and so long as your next comment is consistent with this one, I will run your next comment as a Post and credit you.



chuckyman said...

Bang on the money V. Some of us are old enough to remember the global cooling flap in the 70’s. This is nothing more than another control mechanism, a method to get their grubby hands in our pockets while patronising us at the same time.

They get to set up global control mechanisms to tax us on every facet of life. They even get to classify breathing as pollution as that produces CO2. That way they tell us what food we can grow and eventually all those nasty humans polluting the Earth Goddess have to go – to save the planet of course.

Have you noticed that since the climate-gate emails popped the reality on this BS that many of the clowns state their ‘belief’ in global warming? It’s a belief system, a dogma AKA a bloody religion. Global warming is not the preferred title anymore - its climate change. Here in CCTV land the climate’s always bloody changing.

Screw that. Show me the data. Why are the numbers of temperate sensors being reduced? The remainder are in urban environments - many placed near heat sources like air conditioning units. These are biased to give higher numbers due to the heat sink effect of cities.

I spoke to a local farmer here a couple of years ago and he said that archaeologists were examining an old Roman site on his land. They found remnants of vine growing – in Scotland! The science is bogus, the evidence doesn’t exist but the Rothschild robots are still on course to implement the agenda.

Sorry for the rant V but this one really gets my goat.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Chuckyman,...Rant away brother, mi casa su casa: Regarding that whole Gaia, "Earth Mother" New Age, yada yada yada, you should check this out; I have always had a problem with self-confessed oracles; because I believe Humans have a spiritual connexion with our Creator, I am sceptical about meeting my saviour on a country path... Call me potty, I make my own choices, I also do the research! Very important to know who you have faith in.

Anyhoo, nuff 'bout moi; the link I am putting here for you and anyone else that is wondering how this JooWO is going manifest globally for the masses is an example of one of the many and varied types of scam that the tribe have created to achieve a kingdom for their master:


Cheers Chuckyman,


chuckyman said...

Cool. Someone taking the piss out of D.Icke. I remember when he came out of the spiritual closet with his purple tracksuits. I’ll watch that one in the morning.

Did you ever read Clif High’s discussion of the expanding earth theory? If that’s true then Gaia is a fat ass old mare that’s on a terminal binge streak with fatal (for us) stretch marks (grin).

veritas6464 said...

Hey Chuckyman,...Check this out!



chuckyman said...

Top man Veritas. That certainly helps visualise the process of matching the coastlines. I didn’t know that the age of the rock on the floor of deep ocean trenches was only 200 million years. Sobering thought.

That fits a few pieces together. The abiotic source of hydrocarbons (oil) states that they are constantly being created in the deep crust and continually work their way closer to the surface. Similarly where has all the new water come from?

Interesting in the light of the recent earthquake blitz off the coast of Japan with over 400 significant quakes since the big one. I read from one source that a rift 150 by 100 km had formed on the ocean floor. That might be an early estimate in light of this.

Damn, well past my usual bedtime but this is something to chew on. I might run something up on my heretics’ site. Much appreciated.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Chuckyman,...Yep, Oil is NOT a fossil fuel, it is a bio-organic life-form - what the Histrionic Channel shills call Primordial Slime; it never went away, we use it to fill our fuel tanks!

Also, here's a little experiment you can use to delight and amaze your dinner Party guests, while debunking the Tectonic Plate hoax - clear the Coffee table or Dining table and place three Saucers edge by edge as though you are arranging shells for a Spiv's street-corner scam.

Thus: OOO

Now, slide the left-most edge of the middle plate, which we will call the Pacific Plate, left wise and make it move under the right-hand edge of the left-most plate, which we will call the Eurasian Plate; you will notice that a gap has been created on the right-hand edge of the Pacific Plate between it and the left-hand edge of the right-most plate which we will call the North American Plate.

Reason, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction:

So, there should have been an Earthquake of exactly equal intensity and proportion on the San Andreas fault on The West Coast of The North American Plate, at exactly the same time as the Earthquake on Japan's Eastern Coast. That is...

IF, Tectonic Plate theory wasn't a bunch of shyte!

Sweet dreams young Prince!

Taa taa fer now!


John Friend said...

Veritas my friend, first off, I agree with what you wrote here in this post.


As for our last discussion, see here:


The firefighters were ignorant, cowardly sheep. It was worth a try though. I ain't giving up though.

veritas6464 said...

Hey John Friend,...I have tried to comment at your place, impossible, I give up! Anyhoo, I feel sorry for you, none the less: Fuck them!

The comment I tried to post was eloquent and sympathetic; now I'm just fucked off with the filthy yiddish hackers.



John Friend said...

Hey Veritas, not sure why you couldn't comment over at my blog, but it's OK. Don't feel sorry for me!! If these guys are too ignorant to grasp the facts, then they deserve no justice! It was worth a try. Who knows- maybe they'll take a look at the info I sent and get on board eventually.