Venus never had liquid water or life.
Venus never had liquid water or life.

Venus was Never Like Earth Science is Never Settled

by Lewis Loflin

The World Economic Forum released a study mainly claiming Venus was Earth-like at one time, then CO2 fried the planet.

How did these activists come to such a conclusion without a shred of physical proof? They call it a "hypothesis" based on computer model speculation - in other words, no evidence. They claim the carbon dioxide came later and fried the planet.

Yet to quote the Earth's early atmosphere, "The early atmosphere was mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor. (Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas today.) Water vapor condenses to form the oceans. Photosynthesis caused the amount of carbon dioxide to decrease and oxygen to increase." By the way, the air pressure was 90 times what it is today, similar to Venus.

So why would the early Earth have a CO2 atmosphere and Venus not have the same thing? It was too close to the sun and hot for liquid water. The above WEF claim is scientific garbage to be used by climate spiritualists to scare the crap out of ignorant people.

According to Argonne National Labs (April 27, 2021), the Earth's early atmosphere was 97% CO2 and 3% nitrogen.


But activists claim the sun was 30% dimmer than today, but how do they know? They claim by observing other stars. It is guesswork with no direct evidence. Others claim the sun was too dim to heat the Earth and Venus. Let's stick with the obvious that the sun was not 30% dimmer and was warn enough with the Earth's dense CO2 blanket, the planet didn't become an ice ball.

The natural implication is the massive CO2 levels didn't fry the planet, and life evolved just fine.

A 2010 report in claimed CO2 was 1000 parts per million. I'll take the 2021 Argonne National Labs report where CO2 was nearly 1 million parts per million.

Other sources claim water was present 3.7 billion years ago, so the temperature was within the liquid water range.

They don't know for sure, and the "science" is not settled. There is no evidence of liquid water ever being on Venus.

The above is an example of useless science. It produces nothing of real value. Assuming government funding use the funds to develop nuclear reactor technology or helpful something.

Cambrian 541 to 485.4 MYA
Cambrian 541 to 485.4 MYA

During the Cambrian Explosion (541 to 485.4 MYA), when complex life exploded onto the scene (including corals, etc.), the atmosphere may have been as high as 10,000 PPM CO2 as opposed to ~400 PPM today. The oceans were not "acid," and life did just fine. The fact we are here proves that.

Rising seas also eroded more shoreline, That, in turn, washed more minerals into the oceans. The elements in them included, of course, sulfur but also phosphorus and calcium. In fact, calcium levels in seawater tripled during the early Cambrian. "Calcium is what builds shells. Over time, animals in the seas developed thicker, more ornate shells.

Ref. by Beth Geiger November 13, 2014

Note: CO2 levels were 7,000-8,000 PPM. Today 350 PPM in dry air. The oceans are not acid then or now. Sea shells, corals, and many other complex animals evolved and flourished at 20 to 28 times present CO2 levels. Modern corals appeared 225 million years ago (CO2 1,800 PPM). The oceans were still not acid.

Eocene Epoch (55.8 – 33.9 MYA) when mammals thrived.

Lasting nearly 22 million years, the Eocene is the longest epoch of the Cenozoic. During this time, the first ancestors and close relatives of modern mammal species appeared. Many of these modern mammal groups appear at the beginning of the Eocene, a period of dramatic global warming called the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

Get back to evidence-based science.

In a high tech age that has seen the creation of artificial intelligence by computers, we are also seeing the creation of artificial stupidity by people who call themselves educators. -- Thomas Sowell

From Encyclopedia Britannica on Postmodernism:

Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

President Eisenhower warned of the "defense industrial complex." He also warned of the science-industrial complex. Money, politics, and even religion have distorted modern science, if not undermined, scientific objectivity.

As Eisenhower noted in 1961, research is so expensive that only the wealthy can afford it. The average citizen can only verify a few government claims. They withhold data, alter raw data, (excuse me correct the information) operate in secrecy, redefine words, etc.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address, 1961 (extract)

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex...

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

This problem is so-called climate change research driven by politics. Refusal to follow the scientific method is widespread. Computer models replace actual measured data, sometimes resorting to altering or even manufacturing data.

The problem of government money and chasing grants is troubling, but a complex social agenda has also emerged.

Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance," a book I own, is a fusion of New Age and Eastern religions, far-left politics, and global governance.

Just a few of his ramblings:

"we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the earth...civilization itself has been on a journey from its foundations in the world of nature to an evermore contrived, controlled and manufactured world of our initiative and sometimes arrogant design...As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology...The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by seems obvious that a better understanding of a religious heritage preceding our own by so many thousands of years could offer us new insights."

Environmentalism is more a social science, political reform movement, and religious dogma, not hard science.

Lewis' Frog is my other website. I'm a conservationist, I consider ecology a pseudo-religion. Some of the subjects covered:


Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.