Undeniable fact: “Carbon Dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but a Giver of Life

“Without continued reliance on carbon-energy, much of Canada’s population would simply freeze to death in the next few winters.”
– Chemist Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

____

Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister from chemist Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser.

Undeniable fact: “Carbon Dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but a Giver of Life


March 27, 2021

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

__________________________

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
convenientmyths.com

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

 


20 thoughts on “Undeniable fact: “Carbon Dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but a Giver of Life”

  1. All alone, or in twos
    The ones who really love you
    Walk up and down, outside the wall
    Some hand in hand
    And some gathered together in bands
    The bleeding hearts and the artists make their stand
    And when they’ve given you their all
    Some stagger and fall, after all it’s not easy
    Banging your heart against some mad bugger’s wall

    Roger Walters

  2. Writing to a cartoon like actor paid to indubitably espouse the CO2 narrative hoping to elicit a reasonable logical dialectic is much like when I question my cows [or patients] about what were they thinking about when… well, whatever you can imagine cows think up sometimes… you pick the bad choices made while grazing… anyway, you get it… Herr Doktor Klaus L.E. Kaiser.

  3. “Without that CO2 in the atmosphere, all life on Earth would cease to exist!”

    I have suspected for a long, long time that this is the end goal as sick, deranged, psychotic, and evil as it is.

    • You are 100% right. the left is so deranged that they would love to see the extinction of mankind.

  4. This implies that someone wants a world without CO2.
    Nobody I know.
    Easy for the PM of Canada to dismiss the letter.

    • Nope. The letter does not make that implication. It simply proves that those who believe that CO2 is a pollutant have been duped.

  5. We are in a post-factual world, at least that is the insane zeitgeist. This fantasy land existence can only be temporary – the question must be how shall it end? Alas, whatever the answer is, much of the west and modernity shall end with it.

  6. funny how so few seem to even know that humans are a carbon based life form
    but it sure explains the hate FOR people the agw mobs espouse
    forgetting they too are just the same

  7. A waste of time and paper. If Klaus really
    believes it`s all about saving the planet,
    he`s extremely naive.

  8. Astro-geophysical factors aside (Sol’s galactic context, Earth’s geomagnetic reversals plus orbital inclination and precession, impact events, plate tectonics and volcanism), researchers studiously ignore Svensmark-Zharkova’s empirically demonstrated postulate (2007 – 2018) that cosmic rays driven by fluctuating solar magnetic fields (SMFs) affect solar-radiation (TSI) cloud-cover, impelling lengthy chill-phases in global atmospheric surface temperature (GAST).

    Speaking of academic/professional defaults, from December 2017 Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ “Mean Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law” has definitively proved that any –repeat, any– planet’s global atmospheric surface temperature T = PM/Rp, where P = Atmospheric Pressure times M = Mean Molar Mass over R = Atmospheric Density times Gas Constant p. Since CO2 is not a factor, no (unobserved) “carbon-footprint” greenhouse gas effect applies.

    In thus belying AGW legates’ anti-energy burlesque, Holmes’ Law refutes Luddites’ anti-“fossil fuel” (sic) premise hyping urban heat-island (UHI) effects. Historical ephemera aside, for the first time since the pre-Cambrian Ediacaran Period (635 – 541 MYA), from the late Pliocene 3.6 mm YBP, Alaska – Andean orogenies ending in the Eocene (56 – 34 MYA) have merged continental plate-tectonic dispositions to block global atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns. (The Ordovician’s 1.4 million-year Hirnantian glaciation is not analogous.) Despite the geophysical time-lag, walling off Eastern from Western hemispheres has induced cyclical 102-kiloyear glaciations interspersed with median 12,550-year interstadial remissions due to last another 12 – 15 million years.

  9. Sorry about the length, Robert.
    Here is the edited version. I hope I caught it in time.

    I heard it said on a video that, with all the facts out there regarding covid, it’s less a test of our collective resolve in the face of a pandemic, and more a simple IQ test.

    I agree.

    The same has been true of the CO2 issue for many decades.

    I hear the psuedo-scientists rail about the 400ppb stat constantly, as if it’s a universally accepted harbinger of some extinction level event.

    What I NEVER hear, is any talk about deforestation. That issue is so 1990’s, it seems. If the Amazon rain forest is, in fact, the “lungs of the world” why doesn’t Sorros, send masked thugs down there to protect it? Or, better yet, caravans of Central America economic refugees?

    Hell, I’d settle for an intelligent debate about why we’re ok with clearing thousands of roads through forests and cutting untold amounts of ridgelines to erect CO2 intensive and unreliable windmills, and cutting down millions of trees in urban areas (precisely where they’re needed most) to install unnecessary and untested 5G. The same criminals who are perfectly of with these measures, which were a hot topic of debate a couple decades ago, want you to give up your car, your red meat consumption, your vacations and your private property, because, THESE steps will make the world “greener” somehow.

    I’m so old, I remember when the green movement was called that, precisely because it advocated protecting natural spaces, and the trees therein. Not so anymore.

    We let them move the bar, folks.

    They’ve changed their story countless times. First, it was “save the trees”, then global warming, then climate change, now they want us to believe that above all else, WE are the problem. Period.

    By “we” of course, I mean all of us who aren’t worth a few hundred million or more.

    Funny, isn’t it? Termites generate 10 times more CO2 than you and I, and they seem to live their short lives relatively unmolested. We, on the other hand, are constantly being told there are too many of US!

    It’s a purely anti-human agenda, and these psychopaths will say and do whatever they want (if we let them) until the entire planet is a playground for the rich and famous, and OUR population is manageable.

    In this case, “manageable” means there will be enough of us left to maintain their private jets and helicopters, mow their vast lawns and clean their swimming pools.

    Anyone who doesn’t see a dystopian nightmare coming, that would make George Orwell turn over in his grave, better wake up soon.

    PS. Its time to network and build community, rather than preach to the choir

  10. When I hear a married woman talking about “carbon” as a problem… I like pointing out their carbon engagement ring. Mouth open?

  11. Well, someone should tell Mr. EPA that without CO2 we would all be dead.

    When the government starts to politicize science, and “reality” is what a bunch of green crackpot demagogues (like AOC) say it is, then total destruction is on it’s way.

    So here we are at the end of the interglacial (Holocene) and these fools with political power want to combat “global warming” while the snow piles up above the roofline and the windmills and unicorns freeze solid, be sure to go buy a Tesla all electric car when they send you a $12,000 dollar electric bill.

  12. Without volcanic action discharging CO2 into the atmosphere we would not have life on earth nor would we have escaped the ice age. They talk about carbon: well another aspect to CO2 is oxygen… tax oxygen it wouldn’t wash. Carbon, a basic building block of life, tax is insane and plays into globalism .
    Protect forests and life.

    • … nor would we have escaped the ice age… [because of the tremendous CO2 greenhouse effect?] … uh huh… okay] Greta figures that’s right too.

  13. I host the website CO2questions.com in hope that it can be used as a tool. I say “Yes, I believe in climate change” – yes, the natural kind – but have a few questions, which I’ve put on this website. Perhaps that approach will get people to start asking a few questions themselves. I think question #1 on the site by itself falsifies AGW but that may be too optimistic.

Comments are closed.