“Carbon Pollution” Claptrap

‘So-called “greenhouse gas effect” of CO2 does not exist at all!’
– Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Carbon Pollution” Claptrap

Carbon (as in wood, coal, oil, natural gas) is an energy source — not a pollutant

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

When will the governments (and their all too numerous “useful idiots” of the media) state the unadulterated truth to the people?

Carbon (like in wood, coal, oil, natural gas) is an energy source—not a “pollutant”

Presumably, any government has the right to levy a tax on anything they want. In that sense, a tax on “carbon” or any energy source would be no different than a tax on food or clothing; it’s all coming out of your pocket. However, the right to levy taxes does not give government a right to call “carbon” (by their interpretation really meaning “carbon dioxide”) as a form of “pollution.”

NO, carbon dioxide is NOT pollution, none whatsoever!

YES, carbon dioxide is a VITAL constituent of the atmosphere!

Carbon Tax

Whether Canada’s recently elected Prime Minister or any of the country’s provincial premiers think that a “carbon tax” is a good thing or not is all irrelevant. Governments always have the option to place levies and taxes on anything they choose. Whether the people they claim to represent and work for will find such charges acceptable or not can be gauged on the outcome of the next general election.

One thing that I cannot excuse, however, is for any government that claims to live by common standards of communication and honesty, to fail in providing facts and truthful information to its citizenry. And, quite frankly, IMHO, the previous government of this great country of Canada had seven years’ time to set the record straight but missed the opportunity. They had all the resources necessary to educate the citizenry to respect the country’s reliance on natural resources and feel good about our “carbon.”

You do not – have the right to tell us lies, neither about “carbon pollution” nor anything else!

Yes, dear government, you have the right to tax the hell out of us poor schmucks but you do not – I repeat, you do not – have the right to tell us lies, neither about “carbon pollution” nor anything else!

* * *

But Lies Abound-With no End in Sight

But lies abound, you can find them almost daily in the news, for example, when (presumably well-meaning) journalists or politicians talk about carbon dioxide (CO2) as “pollution.” The visuals that frequently go along with such news reports are equally false when they show steam rising from cooling towers.

For sure, if you take a high contrast picture of a cloud of steam rising from such a structure against a bright sun-lit background, it will appear very dark in comparison. Just like when it’s dark on even the sunniest day and high in the atmosphere a cloud moves in to block the sunshine. However, neither steam nor CO2 are forms of pollution. From the cooling towers only steam is emanating that eventually may turn into rain. In contrast, so-called “smoke stacks” do emit CO2 (an invisible gas) but true smoke (fine particulates in the air) has largely been removed by modern electrostatic precipitation and scrubbing technologies.

I can never figure out whether the reporters or their photographers are that stupid or simply don’t care about understanding such things. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a vital constituent of our atmosphere. At a concentration of 0.04% not only does it have room to grow, it helps the plants grow better and faster and does not have any significant effects on the earth’s weather and climate.

But all that knowledge does not prevent governments to dream up a need for a carbon tax either directly or indirectly via some cap and trade mechanism. Of course, any such new tax, so we are given to believe, will help to “save the climate.”

However, the climate does not care about CO2. It’s mainly controlled by the radiation from the sun and the water cycle on Earth.

The Sun’s Radiation

The earth receives electromagnetic (EM) waves from everywhere in the stellar space, most of the energy comes from the sun, more exactly its surface. And that is of vital consequence for all life on earth. If the sun were to cool down, the earth would rapidly turn into a ball of ice. It happened before, repeatedly, when large parts of the continents were covered by solid ice-one mile high!

While the sun’s interior is thought to be millions of degrees hot, its surface is comparatively cool, a mere 6,000 °C (10,000 °F) or so. As a result, it emits a large amount of radiation over a wide spectrum of EM wavelengths. The shorter the wavelength of that radiation, the higher is the energy of the EM energy. Really short-wavelength “gamma-ray” type radiation also arrives on the earth from other sources in space. That very energetic radiation penetrates far into soil and can even be detected in underground mines or deep inside Cheop’s pyramid.

Most of the sun’s radiation is less energetic, ranging from short wavelength ultraviolet rays to much longer wavelengths on the other side of the (for our eyes) visible spectrum. The latter is only a small fraction of the whole electromagnetic wave (EMW) range stretching over many orders of magnitude, ranging from low energy AM radio waves to high energy gamma rays, as you can glean from the figure below.

Range of the electromagnetic spectrum covering 18 orders of magnitude; source: Wikipedia.

As you can see, the EMW spectrum covers many orders of magnitude. Theoretically it is open-ended on both sides but practically the earth gets most of the sun’s EMW energy in the range of only within one order of that energy range. You can clearly see that from the next graph which the solar radiation spectrum as a function of the wavelength. Nearly all the visible light, ultraviolet and infrared radiation energy from the sun is found within that small range.


The sun’s EMW radiation spectrum; source: Wikipedia.


In that graph the yellow area shows the solar spectrum and the red areas the various energy absorption bands of the oxygen (O2 and O3), water (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules in the earth’s atmosphere. Clearly, CO2 is not only a minor constituent of the atmosphere (at 0.04%) but also a negligible absorber of the whole range of EMW energy received on the earth’s surface. What about the “greenhouse gas effect” ascribed to that trace gas CO2?

The Greenhouse Gas Effect

That so-called “greenhouse gas effect” of CO2 does not exist at all! While the earth’s surface does radiate low(er)-energy (i.e., infrared) EMW back towards the universe and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb such infrared EMW of a particular, narrow energy-band, it gets soon irradiated out further. At most, the CO2 can delay that radiation for a short time but it cannot alter the ratio between incoming and outgoing energy fluxes.

There is even extraterrestrial “experimental” proof for that: planet Mars has an atmosphere that consists of 95% CO2 (versus 0.04% on earth). By the “CO2-greenhouse gas effect wisdom,” the night-side surface temperature of Mars should be similar to that of the day-side (approximately PLUS 30 °C). In fact though, the surface temperature on the night-side is well below MINUS 100 °C, just like on the Moon which has no atmosphere at all.

In other words: a CO2-rich atmosphere or none at all makes hardly any difference!

If that doesn’t convince you, perhaps you are interested in some swampland in the Everglades or “crater-view real estate” on the Moon—serious inquiries only, please.

Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.

Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.

Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths.com

19 thoughts on ““Carbon Pollution” Claptrap”

  1. The science doesn’t matter. The world wide Globalist agenda does. I’m going to post a video. Controversial? Yes. Very! I promise it posits a religious view that is mind numbing in it’s very clear message.

    Even believers struggle with it’s representations because they are so clear, so present in our world today and so stunning to our thinking that it triggers the reaction of cognitive dissonance.
    The speaker is a man attacked for this message even by some in his own church. I have looked at the facts of their arguments and found some petty attacks with little or no substance, just having differences. Another seems to be a poor mans PhD. with no Professorship. He’ seems jealous. After reading his articles I find a man very capable for cutting and pasting but little solid thought of his own.

    We all need to think for ourselves. Too many detractors thrive today. Don’t let them rob you of the truth.

    Please see all of it if you watch any of it. https://youtu.be/Hwk8n8eixBI

    • sorry mate a lot heavy on the religio side
      if you mean to draw a conclusion BY the way the agw crew and some,(not all,) churches seeking more control and power are willing to go along with warmist crud..then yes they are and will do so.
      the similarities between the fervour of the (should be) committed greenzealots and the crusaders is pretty easy to spot:-)
      the popes present actions tell it pretty clearly
      hes signed on to get what he thinks is a larger mob of devotees and new converts.
      May they burn in hell:-)..should it exist anywhere but here on Earth now.

  2. When the US Congress drafted the Clean Air Act, Congress delegated the power to the Executive Branch to declare any substance a pollutant and delegated the power to regulate the substance to further ‘health and welfare’.

    The EPA could define oxygen or water vapor as a pollutant.

    But that is not the legal issue. At least that should not be the legal issue. What should be the focus of the legal challenges should be ‘health and welfare’ both in relation to the intent of congress in delegating the power and the intent of Congress in targeting potential beneficiaries.

    Did Congress intend that the EPA should acquire such sweeping power over the energy sector merely by defining CO2 as a pollutant?

    Did Congress intend that EPA should adopt rules that would place such costs upon the US economy given that 95% of the estimates benefits from climate mitigation would accrue outside US territory?

    These are legal questions that may or may not bear any relationship to the real world.

    Simply stated, in determining how to apply a law, the words are not sufficient. The courts must determine from the words and their context what the intent of Congress was when the law was enacted.

    The Clean Air Act was intended to improve and maintain the health and welfare of Americans, not Swiss or Japanese or any other nationality.

    The question the courts should consider is whether or not the cost of the EPA rules has an adverse impact on the US economy as measured by increased consumer prices, loss in the value of capital investments in the energy and power sectors, and loss of jobs as manufacturing activities move overseas.

    In the national economic context, carbon is the main fuel that drives the economy. Is it reasonable to infer that Congress intended to delegate to the Executive Branch such control over the economy?

    Is it the Clean Air Act constitutionally too vague concerning the powers delegated to the Executive? If not, are there any limits whatsoever upon the authority of Congress to delegate to the Executive discretionary control over the economy, capital investments, job opportunities and consumption of energy?

    Is there any limit upon the authority of Congress to delegate power to the President to implement a policy that will wipe out a major industry, its jobs and the communities based on the industry?

    If so, why did Prohibition (of alcohol) require a constitutional amendment?

    In my opinion, Congress did not intend for the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant.

    Does the Constitution permit Congress to delegate discretionary power to the President to wipe out major industries, their capital investments, jobs, and communities?

    I believe not, but I am not claiming that Congress cannot constitutionally pass laws to regulate industries even by declaring CO2 a pollutant and to wipe out industries.

    What Congress may not do is delegate to the President its own power to make radical changes in the US economy.

    If that were lawful, Congress could find an easy path to dictatorship for an Imperial Presidency, because what constitutes dictatorship is not merely rule by discretion, but the scope and impact of discretionary power upon those who are governed.

    The President and the EPA have found holes in the constitutional dike that restrains executive power and are seek thereby to undermine the separation of powers.

  3. A good article with an error. Steam is an invisible gas or vapor produced from boiling water. Cooling towers do not emit steam, but a mist of water droplets visible as clouds. As stated correctly, the clouds appear dark when illuminated from behind.

  4. “When will the governments (and their all too numerous “useful idiots” of the media) state the unadulterated truth to the people?”

    When pigs fly.

    Dr. Klaus, smart people realize that this issue has nothing to do with science and the truth and everything to do with stripping people of the rights our forefathers fought and died to obtain for us.

    Forget science. History is the only thing that will serve us here. The more that people see the parallels between the global warming agenda and the rise of the Nazis in Germany, the better chance we have of stopping them.

    Personally, I believe we’ll see porcine aviators before that happens, but we need at least to try.

  5. Wm. Craig Barnard-Thanks for the lecture by Mr. Veith. I already knew this Pope was a wrong ‘un by the way he supports the globalist agenda.

    Most people who disparage the Bible have never read nor studied it. For those of us who have, the working out in our day of prophecies written 2000 and more years ago (so many, many of them!) cannot be written off as coincidence.

  6. I was stunned, but not really surprised, to hear Bernie Sanders this weekend, talking about CO2 as a pollutant that causes asthma and lung cancer. He was clever about it, though, as he started off talking about CO2 as “carbon pollution” that is causing catastrophic global warming, then neatly segued into saying that “carbon pollution” is causing terrible health problems, such as asthma and lung cancer, so he avoided specifically saying that CO2 was the cause, but to the average college graduate or other moron educated in our indoctrination centers, the clear impression he gave was that CO2 causes such health problems.

    And Bernie was technically correct in a sense, that burning carbon-based fuels can cause such health problems, as in China, but the Left won’t allow even cleaned up emissions from power plants in this country, because they’ve gotten their activists at the EPA to declare that CO2 is a pollutant, even though it poses zero health risks. (Though I have recently seen some Leftist propaganda that is actually arguing that higher CO2 levels are making people sick. Let’s see…. the ambient CO2 is about 400 parts per million, and the air we exhale on each breath — still breathable — is about 40,000 parts per million. So that air that’s in our lungs before we expel it must be killing us. Such is the logic of our brilliant “scientists.”)

    • The health effects of excess CO2 on humans is a classic misdirection typical of the pseudoscience of climate change advocates.

      The human body has an absolute need to rid itself of CO2 – the waste product of metabolism. The inability to remove that CO2 from the body can have disastrous health effects and eventually may kill you.

      The health effects of our lungs inability to remove CO2 through some disease condition can cause the adverse health effects quoted but this has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere !

      Anyone who makes statements that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause disease is either a liar, too stupid to ever be considered for ANY public office including janitor or both !!!

      There have been so many glaringly obvious absurd and totally discredited claims surrounding CO2 and climate change that only a complete moron would not question the belief.

      And yet they line up at protest after protest smugly thinking they are superior because of their holiness in “saving the planet” whilst they ignore the thousands of absurd claims made about “heating the planet” all of which have failed.

      There is a special kind of dumb that ignores the litany of failed predictions and maintains the faith no matter what.

    • Bernie & his crowd are the geo-engineering Pigs who cause respiratory Illness. They will sacrifice themselves, their children and anything else on the planet in order to complete the globalist Nazi agenda. They are the 1%.

    • Someone should inform the Bern that the gas in soft drinks, e.g. Coke, is CO2. To be consistent he should propagate a tax or total ban on all CO2-fizzing (“poisonous”) drinks. It may win some green votes, lose others.

      • By banning Soft fizzy drinks such as Coke and the 300 grams of refined sugar each family sized bottle each one has, he might just stop the western countries Diabetes type 2 plague in its tracks. As well as saving all that plastic for better uses than land fill or polluting the oceans.

  7. The critical part of the solar spectrum which varies by up to 16% per solar cycle is at the UV end of the spectrum. During solar Max High levels of EUV is emitted by the Sun and is received by the Earth atmosphere.
    Particularly during Solar Cycles 21, 22, and 23, and the end of the cycle, EUV is much reduced as the Sun is, or is close to, spots less.
    It is this energy wave length which has most effect on our climate. During high levels of UV, the weather Jet Stream flow in a linear in an East to West flow in both hemispheres centred on the high 40 degrees latitude, and the top of range of movement of the Jet is into the high 50s or low 40s.
    During Solar cycle end periods and more so now during a Solar Grand Minimum, with much reduced EUV, the Jets are almost completely meridional and range from the high 70s latitude right down into the high twenties. This pushes warm air up into the Artic and cold air right down into Vietnam, to the same latitude as Cuba. It also causes Drought and excess rain fall dependent on which side of the Jet you are located.
    We are currently half way down the decline to the end of the solar cycle 24; solar cycle 25 will be even lower in EUV output than this one. As far as a cold climate goes, for both Hemispheres you haven’t seen anything yet!

    • I’ve always used Mars as an example when talking to warmists. Of course they haven’t got a clue about Mars so I am wasting my time. The other interesting thing about Mars is that the ice caps expand and retreat with the seasons but the warmists aren’t interested in that piece of info either. They can’t blame it on humans, so they don’t want to know about it.

  8. 2CO2 + 2H2O = 2CH2 + 3O2

    3O2 + 2CH2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O

    It is sad that chemistry is not a part of the basic education being taught at school. I learnt chemistry privately from my mother who bought me a chemistry set. Real hands on experiments at home. I was still at primary school at that time. In the British education system such chemistry is only taught to university students who choose it as their specialization.

    The existence of life on this planet is entirely down to the fact that the earth was originally having an atmosphere that was massively rich in Carbon Dioxide. Thus plants were the original life to emerge. They consumed the carbon dioxide and created the now rich in oxygen atmosphere essential for the animal life to exist.

    The existence of Carbon Dioxide is absolutely essential for plants to exist. Such that persons who advocate cut backs in CO2 emissions are bringing about the extinction of all life on this planet. Starting with the plants. To enrich life on this planet we should be utilizing as much hydrocarbon fuels as we can.

    The public in general no longer burn coal and are thinking in error that coal emits Sulphur Dioxide. Actually coal when burnt does not emit any Sulphur Dioxide. The Sulphates and Phosphates drop down through the grate as “Pot Ash” powder. Used in the manufacture of soaps and detergents and washing powders. All the Sulphur Dioxide in the environment comes from volcanic sources. Not man made sources. “Soot” in the chimney is simply pure Carbon and has industrial usages. What goes out of the chimney is simply water vapor and carbon dioxide vapor. “Smoke” only exists when burning wood in the open air at camp.

    Archeologists have discovered that in the ancient world Sulphur mineral was mined from surface and underground deposits and purified to make it more than 90% pure Sulphur. This purified Sulphur was then used to smelt rare metals that require the extremely high temperatures that burning purified Sulphur can produce. The biblical Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have been part of that rare metal smelting industry in the ancient world. Such pure Sulphur does not occur in nature. So that such industry would result in the formation of Sulphuric Acid raining on to places further down wind. No such industry exists in this day. So that today in the modern world such acid rain is only existing from natural volcanic activity. In our collective DNA we carry the inherited memory and some how associate the burning of purified Sulphur with the burning of Coal. However the two are very different. Burning hydrocarbon fuel does not produce any acid rain fall out.


    • In addition I would also like to postulate that by burning purified Sulphur the ancient world were able to cause granite rocks to lose their crystalline water content and thus become a pure Silica powder. Pure Silicon Oxide. This white powder was very light in weight and easy to transport. The builders of the pyramids in Egypt as well as the Greeks and the Romans would mix the powder with water to create their incredible architecture. The 2000 ton huge blocks of stone at Baalbek in Lebanon were created in position. Thus the perfectly level surfaces. The exact fitting of the connecting blocks too.

      • Interesting supposition, Neil Love, but I have seen no real evidence of wide spread purification of sulphur no of wide spread burning of granite with purified sulphur. While interesting, it dismisses generations of very capable engineers, masons, and builders who cut and transported large stones. The simple explanation is usually the right one.

    • Actually the first life to develop was bacterial. Only some Eons later came Cyano-bacteria which used photosynthesis, after that came simple plants which were algae, some more Eons passed before plant life came on land. Since that, it’s been an explosion of plant and animal life with only a few extinction event setbacks.

  9. The crux of this article was pretty much demonstrated by Neils Bohr more than a century ago. Nobody claiming to be a scientist today should open his mouth unless he’s familiar with century old science. Once again the whole “carbon” problem is one of political cow manure rather than anything to do with the physics of carbon, heat, or sunshine.

Comments are closed.