Watch: Award-Winning Chemistry Prof Dr. István Markó rips ‘Nostradamuses of climate’ – Rejects CO2 fears, calls warmism ‘a religion’


By: - Climate DepotJanuary 8, 2016 10:05 AM with 16 comments

“All the conclusions being reached by the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] are actually flawed conclusions,” said Dr. Markó, who serves as a professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and co-authored The Bankruptcy of Climatism.

In short, the IPCC is wrong and cannot be trusted, he said, echoing numerous other experts — including some who worked with the IPCC — at the summit.

His speech at the summit was entitled: “The Nostradamuses of Climate and Their Erroneous Prophecies.” It was a big hit among attendees.

Pointing out that carbon dioxide is not pollution but rather an essential molecule that provides food for plants and oxygen for people, Dr. Markó told The New American that plants were currently starving for more CO2. That is why, for example, greenhouses growing plants are pumped full of CO2 at concentrations far, far higher than those currently found in the atmosphere.

“The worst thing that can happen is decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air,” continued the expert, who has spent considerable time studying the essential molecule.

There is also not a shred of real evidence showing that humanity’s release of CO2, known as the gas of life to scientists, “has any effect whatsoever on the temperature of our earth,” he added.

“This is almost like a religion, you know, you have the original sin, the original sin is carbon dioxide, and the one who committed it is the human being,” Dr. Markó continued. “So we all have to repent. This is basically the message [of the UN COP21 in Paris]. It’s a new religion going on; we call it climatism around here.”


  • Well Done

    My high school-level Chemistry knowledge tells me a few hundred PPM of a trace gas could NOT affect ocean pH, or anything else for that matter. I’m sure the derelict liars on the man-did-it team know that quite well. They’re liars, then.

    • Dano2

      My high school-level Chemistry knowledge tells me a few hundred PPM of a trace gas could NOT affect ocean pH, or anything else for that matter

      You failed out of that class, clearly.

      Best,

      D

      • CRWINC

        I have a degree in Chemistry and doctorate in the sciences and know that the CO2 in the atmosphere has never caused the oceans to acidify (pH below 7.0) and never will. The reductions in pH “calculated” by alarmists (like 0.1 pH unit) are smaller than daily fluctuations in many regions. There is good evidence to back this up and in ages past, the CO2 in the atmosphere was many, many times higher than now–especially during some ice ages. Besides, it is well known that termites (actually microorganisms in their gut) produce far more C02 in our atmosphere than all the fossil fuel burning by man. It is sad so many people listen to propaganda and believe it without checking the data and facts themselves.

        • Dano2

          Nonetheless, the oceans acidify as we type.

          And you’ll remember from your biology classes that CO2 levels tens of millions of years ago are irrelevant.

          You also remember from chem/phys/biol about nutrient cycles. Since you remember your nutrient cycles, you remember the C cycle (I can abbreviate with chem symbols, right?). Since you remember your C cycle you remember that the CO2 ppmv has not been higher than 280 for maybe 1M years, and the level of CO2 today is the highest for maybe 3M yr. Man did that.

          You’ll also remember from biol that organisms adapt faster than that, and the organisms on earth are adapted to ~200-280 ppmv. Some grasses can take less, and indeed arose in glaciated conditions when CO2 was lower and climate cooler and drier. So all the CO2 we added to the biosphere is doing something, and already we see the sensitive organisms in the ocean having trouble with the acidifying oceans.

          So I’m confused that, with all your purported education in the sciences that you don’t know the basics. Is your doctorate in the sciences in IT or injuneering or something not having the slightest thing to do with the natural sciences? I suspect that is the case.

          Cheers!

          Best,

          D

    • Marilynkhernandez

      ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      3ztm………
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • Mick

    Dano obviously missed this demonstration in his high school chemistry class. Co2 is pumped into an alkaline solution (the oceans are alkaline). The first thing that happens is a white precipitate forms, this is calcium carbonate which is not soluble in water. Continuing to add CO2, the precipitate gradually disappears, as calcium bicarbonate if formed, this is soluble in water and is alkaline.
    Below 200ppm CO2 plants stop photosynthesising. Above this figure photosynthesis starts slowly and increases with increasing atmospheric CO2. Commercial glasshouse crop growers add CO2 to 1000ppm, which they consider is the optimum level. I have a BSc in biology and MSc in ecology and 30 years professional experience. I suspect that he got his information from some global warming misinformation site like scepticalscience