Non Anthropogenic Carbon Emission – Rotten Theory ?

H/T Dr. Tim Ball and Watts Up With That (Source)

It’s not surprising because all greenhouse gas numbers are very crude estimates for each source. The only table, to my knowledge, that pulls together the various “source” estimates, was produced by Dr. Dietrich Koelle for 2010 data.


The error range of two natural sources, Ocean outgassing (tropical areas) and Ground bacteria, rotting and decay, exceed the total human contribution. The latter supposedly includes what goes on at the surface under the tropical rainforest. It is a vast natural composting process producing nutrients to sustain the vegetation.

The satellite data is only a surprise to the IPCC supporters, because it completely contradicts their assumptions and narrative. Once again, as it has from the start, the evidence contradicts the consensus assigned to the IPCC hypothesis. Instead of acting in a scientifically appropriate manner and re-examining their science, they misinterpret and mislead through a compliant, politically biased messenger, the mainstream media. (Source)

And starting that post at WUWT

From the start, Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis: The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias.

 We are not dealing with science but with technologically sophisticated religion, and one of the principal reasons I dont bother participating in the debate.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. Trained by Western Mining Corporation and polished by De Beers.
This entry was posted in Science and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Non Anthropogenic Carbon Emission – Rotten Theory ?

  1. PeterMG says:

    I have been quietly reading your blog since you started and completely agree with the last 2 lines of the above post. I’m not a scientist but an engineer, and have been a sceptic of AGW and its derivatives since the late 90’s. I always like to know how thing “work” and when there was no reasonable explanation for “how” CO2 warmed the atmosphere I smelt a rat as they say.

    It’s only now after many years that some “scientific” focus is turning to CO2 which is at the heart of the AGW debate. But it is far too late as the religious belief is now entrenched, and even if tomorrow we proved beyond any doubt (impossible in science I know) that CO2 has nothing to do with climate, all the entrenched political policies would remain for years.

    Political change where people have to approve the spending and taxation budgets of the Politians by majority voting is the only way we will stop activist minorities determining policies for the majority. Technology can now provide us the means of achieving this.

    Back to the science; I’m fairly certain the Japanese had a satellite that gave us the exact same information about 4 or 5 years back but it broke very quickly (or was it that its output was not politically correct and it was taken off line) So the output from this satellite surely cannot be a surprise can it? I know so called climate scientists are intransigent but they can’t be that thick surely?

    As for me one good to come of the current scientific malaise is that I have broadened my horizons and discovered a completely new world of science based on evidence. I think there is an exciting future ahead for real science, but first perhaps we need to stop the politians wasting money chasing ghosts in LHC’s or trying to produce power in fusion reactors thinking this is how the sun does it. Then on the other hand the fact that we have built these things and got nowhere will ultimately help those of us working to rest control back to the people, who collectively are nowhere near as stupid as a room full of “experts” .


    • The CO2 “issue” can be traced back to the 1970’s and the Velikovsky affair and Carl Sagan’s introduction of the runaway greenhouse effect to explain Venus’ measured temperature; James Hansen wrote his pHd on that topic, apparently, but the real issue is the way we think, or more accurately, the way we have been taught, or conditioned, to think. The K-12 education system seems to be inculcating a reliance on authority and fitting in socially – this link,, goes into more detail.

      I visited my high school for the first time in decades last week and was a little startled to discover that even in Australia the K-12 education policy is in place; even more startling was the connection with the Rhodes Scholarships.

      Getting control back with the people seems to be best achieved via Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s ideas, “From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay“, available in Kindle and from Amazon as a paper back.

      I don’t think climate scientists are thick per se, rather that they seem to be the product of progressive education and from too much exposure to the humanities. Your experience as an engineer, and mine as an exploration geologist, means that our thinking processes are driven by data, not authority. The climate scientists, however, not being able to actually perform in situ experiments, and also like the astrophysicists who also cannot really do in situ experiments, and hence have no experience in empiricism which you and I have, then rely on authority to settle discordant data. Kevin Trenberth was the classic case concerning the missing heat problem when he, in an email, concluded that the data were somehow wrong or badly measured.

      The late Fred Hoyle summed it up neatly by pointing out that when scientists end up spending large amounts of time and money, and the issue under research still remains contentious, then they have been thinking with the wrong ideas. I’ve described that manner of thinking as religious, in which authority trumps reality, or evidence.

      You might even describe religious thinking as fossilised thought, or zombie thinking.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s