Dear IPCC,

I can't motivate my kids anymore concerning environmentalism as long as this ageing climate crisis fear is still around. 23 years later, those very same kids of mine, I've been environmentally motivating, are teasing me now about how silly the theory was. This CO2 theory is not sustainable for another 23 years. You people are just too committed to go back now so as a lifelong environmentalist I hereby denounce 100% of the CO2 warming theory. I beg you to do the same.

At least have the honesty to say something like your usual: “Recent climate data has provided challenges that require more research into understanding the complexity of the mix of earth’s contributing factors in Climate Change”.

Just back off of this theory so we can all work together to preserve, not rescue and save and fear all of the time.

Legally, you could all face serious charges for leading the countries of the world to war against an invisible and now non-existent enemy.

It’s your history, you made it. But as long as you insist on leading environmentalism down the wrong road, I will continue to campaign against this failed theory to as many tail-wagers in the media and the politicians who of course will be blaming you, not themselves. You people at the UN chose to play politics instead of science and the real politicians will be eventually be giving all of you some cruel reminders of that tragic mistake.

History will not be kind to any of you modern day witch burners. Good luck.

Kindest Regards,

23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years

So there!

Psst ... Eclipse.

Don't tell whats-his-meme, but the theory has been around since the latter half of the 1800's. Some wing-bat by the name of Svante Arrhenius gave it to us.

Oh yeah, I think the IPCC donuts are just messengers too, they don't do the science - 1000's of others at the 'coal face' (pun intended) do it.

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Ah yes,

Christy, Carter and Singer - pin-up boys of the Heartland Institute.

Now I understand.

Water isn't a pollutant, it lubricates our blood, carries nutrients through our bodies, cleanses us, washes our dishes, and waters our plants. But if you're held underwater for a few minutes you die.

Rocks aren't a pollutant, they sit on mountains and pave our streets. But drop one off a bridge into an oncoming truck's windscreen at 110km / hour and that truck driver might die!

MeMeMine, you still haven't answered my questions about Co2.

If I put an infra-red heat sensing camera on one end of a glass tube, and I put a candle on the other end, the camera easily picks up the thermal energy of the candle. But if I fill that glass tube with Co2, the candle "goes out" on the camera, even though it is still visible through the tube of Co2. WHY?

How do we know what ANY molecule does with ANY wavelength of energy? What is the BASIC science that explains molecules and energy? What is the instrument? or don't you have a clue, as in a single friggin clue?

Hint: try
http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Not that I expect you to even click on either of these or look at them in any detail. You're a troll-boy aren't you?

Please thrill us with another post all about 23 years, even though Tim Flannery (and Q&A) kindly inform us that scientists became aware of Co2's role in our climate over a hundred years ago.

But click your ruby slippers together and say after me "23 years, 23 years, 23 years..."