TV One sinks into climate swamp – Friday

CLOUDS – water vapour (think steam); non-polluting, non-toxic, form on micro-particles, make fantastic animals and shapes

• Guest post •

— by John McLean

TV One managed to plumb new intellectual depths last Friday when it tried to associate photo-chemical smog and micro-particle emissions in urban areas with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It frequently displayed images of real air pollution.

But carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless and non-toxic. It’s of no danger to anyone until the concentration gets up to around 5,000 ppm. It can exclude oxygen and make it impossible to breathe, but so can water. CO2 is very different to the air pollution that advanced countries have been addressing since the late 1970s.

Professor Francis Massen of the Lycée Classique de Diekirch presents near real-time monitoring of meteorological conditions in Luxembourg. The graph of CO2 for the last seven days currently peaks at about 515 ppm. But the elevated CO2 levels aren’t frying the Luxembourgers, daytime temperatures are around 8°C with night time temperatures at times dropping to zero.

Deaths from boredom yet?

US Federal Occupational Health and Safety authorities, and OHS in California, were reported in 2015 as saying, “Properly ventilated buildings should have carbon dioxide levels between 600ppm and 1,000 ppm, with a floor or building average of 800 ppm or less.” It’s fair to say that a relatively crowded meeting at TV One that goes on for some time probably produces a concentration exceeding 1000 ppm. Any great outbreaks of sickness from TV One meetings? Any deaths? Boredom doesn’t count.

But it’s not likely. The OHS statement goes on to say, “If carbon dioxide levels are greater than 1,000 ppm, complaints may occur. Therefore, 1,000 ppm should be used as a guideline for improving ventilation. If a building exceeds this guideline, it should NOT be interpreted as a hazardous or life-threatening situation. An elevated carbon dioxide level is only an indication of an inadequate amount of outside air being brought into a building.”

CO2 is no more a pollutant than water is. It’s essential for the growth of vegetation and many greenhouse growers increase the level of CO2 in order to increase the yield of their fruit or vegetables. Without CO2 you’d have no fruit or vegetables to eat and very little meat either because animals graze on vegetation.

You wouldn’t be able to breathe because CO2 regulates breathing. Your First Aid people will tell you that hyperventilation is cured by having the patient breathe in and out of a paper bag so that CO2 in their blood stream rises to normal levels.

Flood: pollution by water

You’d be equally lost without water, which is why I say that CO2 is no more a pollutant than water.  Do TV One’s news bulletins refer to floods as instances of pollution by water? Do they represent water in their bulletins with muddy streams to imitate pollution?

In a peer-reviewed paper published in 2014 I showed that a reduction in cloud cover was probably the cause of global warming from 1988 to 1997. Clouds form on tiny specks called micro-particles.  Reduce the number of micro-particles in the air and you reduce the ability of clouds to form.

The 1980s probably saw the first large-scale attempts in human history to reduce air pollution, which is to say, a reduction in atmospheric micro-particles. If you think all this sounds like nonsense then remember that London’s deadly “pea-souper” fogs disappeared after the domestic burning of coal was banned.

At the same time major sources of air pollution in Europe and Russia were closed down or rectified in the 1990s and much of the under-developed world stopped burning wood and dung for heating and cooking and started using bottled gas. In short, the air was cleaned up and the unintentional price was higher temperatures — micro-particles were reduced.

TV One is a good example of a media outlet campaigning on a subject of which it is ignorant. So ignorant, in fact, that it cannot distinguish between true experts and activists or lobbyists with a stake who should not be trusted to tell the truth. Someone at TVNZ is deceiving the public.

With so many Kiwis now turning their backs on the climate alarmists there’s a good chance the corporation will soon pay for its climate deceit.


Views: 601

11 Thoughts on “TV One sinks into climate swamp – Friday

  1. Ian Cooper on 15/11/2017 at 8:42 am said:

    I couldn’t have said it better John. The arrogance of people at TV 1 to show a picture of steam (water vapour) pouring out of industrial chimneys while talking about CO2 beggars belief. Those people are treating their audience as a pack of ignorant dummies. That arrogance should get what it deserves.

    I have been pondering on writing a letter to the hierarchy of TVNZ and let them know that if they continue to treat us as a pack of dummies then I for one will sever my connection with them. I will also make it known to a wider circle of friends that I am doing so. They don’t have to follow. They may even disagree with my stand. I can only take so much of this propaganda. This morning was an example of what you stated John regarding their use of political advocates like the World Wildlife Fund & Greenpeace without challenging anything those entities have to say.

    It is no coincidence that both COP23 is occurring in Bonn and TVNZ have their favourite anti-humanist starting a new ‘flagship’ documentary series on our planet. The number of climate alarmist articles appearing on the news is climbing at a faster rate than that of CO2!

  2. Andy on 15/11/2017 at 11:10 am said:

    I just refer to the TV1 news as One Fake News

    Short, to the point, and Trump-esque, so guaranteed to piss all the right people off

  3. Larry Kay on 15/11/2017 at 1:00 pm said:

    TV1 seems unaware of the fact that, in the developed world, air pollution (aerosols) has been decreasing while CO2 emissions have been increasing.

    Measured U.S. air pollution is down 73% from 1970 to the present, but CO2 concentration went up by about 40% during that same period.

    Some CO2 mitigation, such as the switch from coal to natural gas, can reduce both. Other mitigation, such as biofuels, increases air pollution as it reduces CO2. Scrubbers on ‘clean coal’ plants reduce air pollution but leave CO2 emissions unaffected.

    Conflating the two issues can only create confusion – perhaps deliberately.

  4. Andy on 15/11/2017 at 1:23 pm said:

    One Fake News stated the other day that people in Asia were “choking on toxic greenhouse gases” or something similar.

  5. Richard Treadgold on 15/11/2017 at 1:38 pm said:

    Fascinating. I didn’t know that, Larry, thanks. Reality becomes more complex the closer we examine it. The more I read about the radiative effects of the various atmospheric gases, the larger loom the gaps in scientific knowledge. On this tangled, gap-filled cloth the warmsters weave a simplistic, alarming narrative. Error-ridden, but never mind that, trust us, hand over your disbelief.

  6. Maggy Wassilieff on 15/11/2017 at 3:53 pm said:


    Here’s the clip

    In fact, here’s all the Climate Change Propaganda that TV One has been running this last fortnight:

  7. Andy on 16/11/2017 at 10:31 am said:

    Maggy, thanks for the clip.

    “Gas Chambers” huh. I guess this goes with the “Trump is Hitler” meme.

    We can all blame the “gas chambers” on Trump leaving the Paris Climate accord. Makes sense, if you are that way inclined

  8. Mike Jowsey on 17/11/2017 at 3:58 pm said:

    One Fake News. I’ll use that. Thanks AS.

  9. Mike Jowsey on 18/11/2017 at 2:50 pm said:

    From the article, here’s the quote of the month:

    Millions of people die around the world each year from inhaling toxic greenhouse gas emissions.

    Hahahaha! Lol, roflmao, :-D))

  10. Ian Cooper on 20/11/2017 at 11:52 am said:

    I’ll be using that one too from now on Andy. Cheers for that. It should catch on.

  11. lexander K on 26/02/2018 at 3:48 pm said:

    I now have to be very careful to remain silent during the sillier climate fairy stories of TVNZ or I risk a dose of ‘severe side-eye’ from my better half. She knows what I think and agrees with me, but finds my noisiness annoying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation