Donald Trump is clearly not buying Elon Musks’s obsession with Climate change & CO2.
Musk is again creating fear:
– CO2 levels below 150ppm = humans extinction
– We are currently at circa. 423ppm.
Alot closer to extinction than the 1000ppm that would make us ‘uncomfortable’. pic.twitter.com/SPuSJw2LdE
— Marwan Nawaz (@MarwanNawaz) August 13, 2024
Experts from Marc Morano’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” —renowned atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson, founding director of the Institute for Environmental Studies.
#
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on CO2:
Via Jonathan Cohler: There is a meta-study that completely debunks that nonsense about 1000ppm that is now being promulgated.
“Of the 51 human investigations assessed, many did not account for confounding factors, the prior health of participants or cross-over effects. Although there is some evidence linking CO2 exposures with health outcomes, such as reductions in cognitive performance or sick building syndrome (SBS) symptoms, much of the evidence is conflicting. Therefore, given the shortcomings in study designs and conflicting results, it is difficult to say with confidence whether low-level CO2 exposures indoors can be linked to health outcomes.”
BREAKING: Elon Musk just broke the hearts of every climate change believing leftist in the world
“I don’t think we should vilify the oil and gas industry”
“And if we were to stop using oil and gas, the economy would collapse, and we would all be starving” pic.twitter.com/6Pa3SqvAap
— George (@BehizyTweets) August 13, 2024
Study published in “BMC Infectious Diseases”, April 2021: CO2 concentrations in inhaled air when using FFP2 masks (KN95) are between 24,000 ppm and 26,000 ppm, considerably higher than the NIOSH recommended limit of 5,000 ppm for 8-hour exposures. https://t.co/UyZbzJf9Cs
— JOSE GEFAELL (@ChGefaell) August 15, 2024
Dear Elon, 1,000ppm of carbon dioxide is safe, we breathe it every day
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1823673748739744151.html
By JOSE GEFAELL
You can find the full interview/conversation here:
@elonmusk @realDonaldTrump Study published in SAGE Journal, Sept 2022: With surgical masks the mean inhaled air CO2 is 7,091 ppm in children, 4,835 ppm in adults and 4,379 ppm in the elderly. With FFP2 masks is 13,665 ppm in children, 8,502 ppm in adults and 9,027 ppm in the elderly
@elonmusk @realDonaldTrump Study published in “BMC Infectious Diseases”, April 2021: CO2 concentrations in inhaled air when using FFP2 masks (KN95) are between 24,000 ppm and 26,000 ppm, considerably higher than the NIOSH recommended limit of 5,000 ppm for 8-hour exposures.
Study published in “Aerosol and Air Quality Research”, October 2020: CO2 concentrations in air inhaled with different types of respirators, including fabric, surgical or FFP2 masks, are between 2,150 and 2,875 ppm.
1. Assuming that the main cause of the current increase in CO2 is man, it will take 300 years to exceed 1,000 ppm.
2. But the main cause is not man, but natural sources, probably the oceans.
3. In countless situations we breathe more than 1,000 ppm for many hours
• • •
Deputy Director (Intelligence)
DD(I), STAG, to Elon Musk, 2024 July 22
Dear Mr Musk
CO2 toxicity
One of your many supporters has sent us a copy of the following tweet said to be by you,
with a request that we should comment on its scientific assertions –
“A CO2 tax, properly applied, would change the tragedy of the commons that is the
steadily rising CO2 ppm level. If we’re going to tax anything, then we should prioritize
taxing the potentially bad over the potentially good, as we do with alcohol &
cigarettes over vegetables & fruits. I disagree with those who view the climate risk as
catastrophic in the 5 to 10 year range, but the long-term risk is very real, even if one
simply considers quality of life at a given CO2 level. The indoor CO2 ppm level is
significantly above the outdoor average. This means ~800 ppm for ~400 ppm
ambient. Above 1000 ppm, people are noticeably negatively affected. Above 2000
ppm, it gets really painful.”
The Royal Navy and the United States Navy both have long-term experience of exposure
to CO2 on board submarines, where the greatest alertness must be maintained at all
times.
Scientific evidence from several studies shows that, though ambient CO2 concentrations
in submarines are often of order 10,000 parts per million by volume (i.e., 1%), and can
reach 30,000 ppmv (3%), all-cause early mortality among submariners is 30% less than
among the general population (Friedman-Jimenez et al., 2022).
The 1000-ppmv threshold for noticeable negative effects that you mention has little
scientific basis in fact, though it is a guideline often imposed by national regulatory
authorities. Mendel et al. (2024) report that “Most guidelines provided no supportive
evidence for specified limits: few provided persuasive evidence.”
Experiments on time-mated female rats (Howard et al., 2019) conducted on behalf of the
US Navy to ensure the safety of pregnant female submariners found no adverse effects
below a CO2 concentration of 30,000 ppmv (3%), and little harm even above it.
As to long-term risk from CO2 emissions, a paper by climate researchers working with
control theorists (draft summary for high-school seniors and college undergraduates
attached) shows that the notion that global warming will be large enough to be
dangerous is founded in an elementary error of control-theoretic physics. Climate
scientists unfamiliar with control theory borrowed feedback analysis and misapplied it.
In effect, at a crucial point in their calculations they forgot the Sun was shining.2
After correction, only 1 C global warming is legitimately foreseeable this century, which
would be net-beneficial. There has been little more than 1 C global warming over the past
century, but – despite a quadrupling of global population – annually-averaged deaths by
adverse weather have declined globally by 99% (OFDA/CRED disaster databases). There
is no need to take any further action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Even if all nations (rather than Western nations acting almost alone) were to attain net
zero emissions by 2050, the world would be only 0.1 Kelvin cooler by then than if the
long-established forcing-increase trajectory of 1/30th of a Watt per square meter per year
were to continue.
The cost of attaining that small reduction, derived pro rata from the UK National Grid’s
estimated $15.2 trillion cost of net-zeroing the British power grid, which accounts for
25% of British emissions, which in turn account for 0.8% of global emissions, would be
of order $2 quadrillion. Accordingly, each $1 billion spent on emissions abatement
worldwide would buy a reduction of order only one 20-millionth of a Kelvin in global
temperature by 2050 even if all nations attained net zero by that target year.
However, most nations are paying no more than lip-service to the official climate-change
narrative. One reason is that the fundamental error of physics perpetrated by climate
scientists insufficiently familiar with a discipline in physics that was not their own is
already well known in government circles: in China, India and Russia, to name but three.
Would you be kind enough to pass this letter and its attachment to your scientific
staff, and invite them to send us their justification for suggesting that an ambient
CO2 concentration of as little as 1000 ppmv (0.1%) would be net-harmful, together
with any comments that you or they may have on the attached draft for schools?
Yours truly,
DD(I), STAG
Attached: feedback-error-simply-explained.pdf (STAG, unclassified)
References
Friedman-Jimenez G, et al., 2022, Mortality of enlisted men who served on
nuclear-powered submarines in the United States Navy. J. Occup. Envir. Med. 64(2),
131-139, https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002364
Mendell M, et al., 2024, Carbon dioxide guidelines for indoor air quality: a review.
J. Expo. Sci. & Envir. Epidem., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-024-00694-7
Howard WR, et al., 2018, Submarine exposure guideline recommendations for
carbon dioxide based on the prenatal developmental effects of exposure in rats. Birth
Defects Research 111(1), 26-33, https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1417
