In Praise of Carbon: How We’ve Been Misled Into Believing that Carbon Dioxide Causes Climate Change

by David Bennett Laing

If you wring all the water out of us, you and I consist of a little over two thirds carbon dioxide, dry weight, as do all other living things on Earth. Still, more than a few people claim that if we pour this life-giving gas into our atmosphere, we’ll burn up the planet. Is this really true? Many of those people would say, righteously, that I should be ashamed of myself for even asking the question, but that is in fact what this book is all about, asking the question. With “In Praise of Carbon,” I burrow beneath all the doomsday propaganda, scientific and otherwise, in search of the right answer to this question. In doing so, I’ve exposed some rather interesting things. Did you know, for example, that in 1900, the leading atmospheric physicist of the day, Knut Ångström, disproved the theory of greenhouse warming with a series of careful experiments, and despite the loud protestations of its principal exponent, Svante Arrhenius, that theory was dismissed by the scientific climate community for 38 years? Then, in 1938, a climate hobbyist pulled the theory out of the ash can and shouted to the world that “It should work!” Unfortunately, the world listened, and even though the theory of greenhouse warming has never been shown to work experimentally since then, it has, nevertheless, managed to become one of the most trusted and respected cornerstones of modern science. As a scientist, I took some umbrage at this and decided to do my own due diligence, which, along with that of some others, is presented in this book along with some overdue praise for that much-maligned substance, carbon dioxide, to which we all owe our existence.

136 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 5, 2017

About the author

I'm a polymath.
What??
You heard me, a polymath.
So, what the hell's that?
A polymath is someone who gets bored doing the same thing all the time.
So, what do you do?
Well, a little bit of everything.
Look. This is a writers' forum.
I know that.
So, what do you write about?
Oh, a little bit of everything.
Come on!
You should read some of my books.
Why?
Well, they're different; not the same old stuff. You know what I mean?
No, I don't.
Aha! Then you'll just have to see for yourself, won't you?
You mean, like read your stuff?
Bingo!

Reviews

[Joseph O'Byrne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ozone depletion not carbon dioxide!

This book explains how ozone depletion on a seasonal basis correlates with warming and how carbon dioxide levels don’t.
Some arguments hard to follow, but clearly logical.
The most impressive fact revealed was the amazing one that the theory that carbon dioxide levels caused global warming was proposed by Arrhenius 1896 and was refuted by Angstrom five years after with a simple experiment. But that was ignored and modern computer projections are still based on Arrhenius’ theory.

[Ian Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Get another highly qualified scientist joins the settled science of truthful climate debate.

A well presented if sometimes necessary technical explanation of real scientific debate based, as he often reminds us, on real data not highly suspect computer modelling. Like many other books based on real data, it highlights solid reasons why the so called 'man made' cause of Global Warming is not only untrue, but scientifically not possible!

[Garret Seinen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Drink only half of the glass.

The author guides one through a chemical analysis that questions the need to fear destruction for increased atmospheric levels of CO2, but then bring up ozone depletion as a likely cause of climatic warming instead, a theory that I also question and consider no less speculative than greenhouse warming of the earth. Hence I consider it a good read if one retains the proper perspective when reading the final chapters.

[Hugh Gunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A plausible view

I have long agreed that Climate alarmism owes a good deal to crowd behaviour, and many have lost touch with the basics of scientific enquiry. This theory is a plausible alternative, and ad such deserves much greater exposure.