Carbon dioxide allowed in drugs for humans is 130 times higher than the current atmospheric content of carbon dioxide gas. So what gives? The normal CO2 levels in blood is in the range of 30 - 40mm of Hg. High or low levels of carbon dioxide leads to hypercapnia or hypocapnia respectively. This article gives you information on this subject.
CO2 is the chemical formula of carbon dioxide, one of the gaseous variants of the element Carbon, which is also present in our body and is an essential constituent. Though it is more synonymous with the harmful Greenhouse gases which are responsible for the Ozone depletion, it is very much an important constituent of our body. If the normal CO2 levels in blood drops, we may suffer from cerebral vasoconstriction plus many other issues.
The permissible levels of CO2 in blood is only 5% in case of drugs. The basic reason behind raising the normal CO2 levels in body is because of the function of carbon dioxide. It helps balance the oxygen levels in certain medical conditions like apnea. It also acts as a stimulant for more oxygen intake. Apnea or sleep apnea is a disorder in which the oxygen levels decrease in the body. We will now see the symptoms and repercussions of varying normal carbon dioxide levels in blood in the following paragraphs.
High carbon dioxide levels in blood is usually noticed in smokers as they inhale carbon monoxide which again is very harmful. Readings of increased levels of CO2 in blood is anything above 45 mm of Hg and this condition of the body is called hypercapnia.
Climate Sensitivity (CS) is a phrase bandied about by advocates of climate alarm as if our planet is a delicate eco-system worryingly sensitive to human impact. We are told earth not only needs protecting but that CS can be measured accurately using a scientific formula. But below we show why this is yet another Big Green lie.
Belief in a supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE) and that carbon dioxide emissions alter climate is critical to those who wish you to believe the notion of Climate Sensitivity (CS). Climate 'scientists' tell us their numbers are real and measurable in Nature and that there exists a carbon dioxide/temperature logarithmic relationship (CO2/Temp log). We are then glibly told that "for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere our planet's temperature will increase by [you fill the blank] degrees."
So, you would think such a ‘formula’ had been derived in a laboratory, with simulated conditions to that of the atmosphere, because such an experiment would be impossible to perform in the real atmosphere.
But here is the first problem for GHE believers. Our atmosphere is an open system and every laboratory a closed system, so how can any such CS formula devised in a lab have any validity? Well, it can't. It's that simple.
At Principia Scientific International (PSI) we asked two well-known experts in climate studies, Joseph E Postma, an astrophysicist and Dr Tim Ball, climatologist, to explain in more depth.
"The concept of climate sensitivity was first derived, as with so much done on climate, to overcome a perception problem not a scientific one. Who did the actual calculations of climate sensitivity is not documented to my knowledge. The earliest paper I have is the 1984 paper by James Hansen and Takahashi referenced in this paper (see link):
Here is the most common explanation on it:
Some of the answers to questions of origin are found in web pages designed to promote the man-made global warming narrative or to obfuscate problems. Here is RealClimate's efforts that give away much information.
Click on "perennial topic" in the first paragraph to get an idea of their and IPCC thinking. Here is an article trying to justify why it is problematic:
Here is RealClimate's view of this paper:
The need for climate sensitivity began back in the early days of attacks on cattle as the source of methane causing warming. It was triggered by animal rights people and promoted by a campaign and book, 'Beyond Beef,' by Jeremy Rifkin, a long time provocateur and promoter of misinformation.
It's funny that those who stress the scientific credentials of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) use very unscientific and indeed political ways and means to silence all contradictory -- or even skeptical -- views about it.
For example, AGWT activists, scientists and even some MPs have written to the BBC begging it not to give “airtime” to AGWT skeptics or critics. This is a kind of (non)scientific version of the British Leftists' “no platform” policy; which is similarly used to silence literally all the people who dare to have nonconformist views about various and many political subjects.
Indeed individuals in America have even argued that AGWT skeptics should be prosecuted or criminalized -- quite literally!
Will there now be a Gulag built for those who dare to question the complete and total truth of the AGWT? Are all AGW skeptics, by definition, “flat-earthers”, “knuckle-draggers” or the paid agents of Big Business?
So it's clear that these AGW totalitarians don't want to give any “oxygen of publicity” -- to use Margaret Thatcher's phrase about terrorists - to skeptics or critics. Yet we're not talking about terrorists here! We're talking, in many cases, about scientists and those who simply question many -- or simply some -- aspects of what is supposed to be a scientific theory. Aren't questioning and criticism part of the very essence of science? And doesn't all this AGW evangelism show that the theory may in fact be more political than scientific after all?
Whenever you hear cosmologists talk of a black hole they never tell you what type of black hole they allege in what type of big bang universe they allege. It is always reported something like this: there is a black hole here or there and the Universe is expanding. More often than not the black hole is mentioned without any reference to a big bang expanding universe, which is simply assumed as a canvas onto which their black holes are painted. The vagueness of all this is amplified when you learn that there are actually four alleged types of black hole universes and that there are three alleged types of big bang universes.
What are the alleged types of black hole universes you ask? Let’s list them.
(1) Non-rotating, charge neutral
(2) Non-rotating and charged
(3) Rotating, charge neutral
(4) Rotating and charged.
What are the alleged types of big bang universes you ask? They depend on the type of constant spacetime curvature they have, usually denoted by the letter k; the k-curvature. Let’s list them too.
(1) Spatially infinite (k = -1, negatively curved spacetime)
(2) Spatially infinite (k = 0, flat spacetime)
(3) Spatially finite (k = 1, positively curved spacetime).
Each type of black hole universe is no less a universe than each type of big bang universe because each and every black hole alleged is a solution to a completely different set of Einstein’s gravitational field equations. As such black hole universes and big bang universes are all independent of one another. To see why this is so we need only examine the generic defining characteristics of black hole universes and big bang universes and then compare them to one another.
All alleged black hole universes:
(1) Are spatially infinite
(2) Are eternal
(3) Contain only one mass
(4) Are not expanding
(5) And are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.
All alleged big bang universes:
(1) Are either spatially finite (k = 1) or spatially infinite (k = 0 and k = -1)
(2) Are of finite age (~13.8 billion years)
(3) Contain radiation and many masses
(4) Are expanding
(5) And are not asymptotically anything.
Note also that none of the alleged black hole universes possesses any big bang k-curvature.
It is immediately apparent that none of the foregoing defining characteristics of black hole universes are compatible with those of the big bang universes. Consequently black holes and big bangs are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless cosmologists thoughtlessly blend them to obtain billions upon billions of black holes in some unspecified big bang universe that is of finite age.
That a black hole universe is a universe is clear from the fact that it is either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. There is no bound on asymptotic, for otherwise it would not be asymptotic, and so there is no bound on the extent of the spacetime of any black hole. Thus the black hole universe is spatially infinite. Let’s consider just two alleged black holes. Each black hole disturbs the asymptotic character of the spacetime of the other black hole by its presence, no matter how far away they might be supposed from one another, and thereby violates this defining feature of a black hole. Moreover, all alleged black holes are said to have an infinite spacetime curvature at their so-called ‘singularity’. Consequently each of the two black holes under consideration encounters an infinite spacetime curvature at the singularity of the other, and that is a far cry from being asymptotically anything. It’s clear that a black hole universe can’t coexist with any other black hole universe or even with a duplicate of itself. Nor can it exist inside some big bang universe. Similarly no big bang universe can coexist with any black hole universe, with any other big bang universe, or with itself. Now consider the 2.5 million black holes that NASA scientists  have allegedly found with their WISE survey! Each of these alleged black holes encounters 2, 499, 999 ‘infinite’ curvatures around it, and that’s a long way from being asymptotically anything. What about the cosmologists’ claim that ‘almost’ every galaxy harbours a supermassive black hole at its centre? How many galaxies are there?
Now try placing any of the black hole universes, which are all eternal, inside any of the big bang universes, all of which are allegedly ~13.8 billion years old. They don’t fit! What about sticking in any of the black hole universes, all of which are spatially infinite, inside the spatially finite type of big bang universe? They don’t fit either. You can try fitting any of the other defining properties of black hole universes with the defining properties of the big bang universes. You will find that none of them fit, as the comparative list above succinctly reveals.
Every black hole is, on the one hand, alleged to have an escape velocity and this escape velocity is greater than or equal to the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by the letter c. For instance,
“black hole A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.” 
“According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus, if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. So one has a set of events, a region of space-time from which it is not possible to escape to reach a distant observer. Its boundary is called the event horizon. It coincides with the paths of the light rays that just fail to escape from the black hole.” 
The escape velocity of a body is the velocity that another body must initially have in order to escape from the gravitational interaction force produced by them upon one another. A rocket, for instance, must attain the escape velocity of Earth to escape from Earth. Note that escape velocity does not imply that things can’t leave, only that things can’t escape unless propelled at or greater than the escape velocity. If you throw a ball into the air, did it leave the surface of the Earth? Certainly! Did it escape from the Earth? No; it falls back to ground.
Now, on the other hand, it is also claimed that nothing can even leave the event horizon of a black hole, let alone escape. Things can only go into a black hole but nothing can even leave or emerge, not even light. This property is often referred to by cosmologists as a ‘one-way membrane’ at the event horizon.
“I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.” 
Thus, Hawking  tells us that nothing can even leave the event horizon, because even light hovers at the event horizon, “forever”.
Professor Bland-Hawthorn  of the
“A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes.” 
Light travels at the speed of light, and according to Bland-Hawthorn the escape speed is the speed of light, from which he concludes that light can’t escape. Well, if the escape speed is the speed of light and light travels at the speed of light, then light not only leaves, it also certainly escapes.
Since all black holes are alleged to have an escape velocity and since nothing can even leave black holes, the cosmologists thoughtlessly claim that their black holes have and do no have an escape velocity simultaneously; which is quite impossible.
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is claimed by cosmologists to be the afterglow of some big bang, the type of which they never say. Various atmospheric balloons and rockets, and several satellites, have allegedly measured the temperature of this afterglow, the so-called mean temperature of the Universe or the monopole signal, and tiny variations therein called anisotropies. Yet the monopole signal has never been detected outside the influence of Earth. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was only orbiting Earth at an altitude of about 950 km. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Planck spacecraft were located at the Second Lagrange point, L2, which is some 1.5 million km from Earth, on Earth’s far side from the Sun.
COBE carried two instruments: (a) the Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS), and (2) the Differential Microwave Radiometers (DMR). FIRAS allegedly measured the monopole signal of the CMB and DMR the so-called anisotropies in the CMB. WMAP was a differential instrument and so was incapable of detecting a monopole signal - it could only address anisotropies. The Planck spacecraft carried two instruments: (1) the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI), and (2) the High Frequency Instrument (HFI). Also aboard Planck were two 4 Kelvin blackbody loads for the LFI to compare to. Although the Planck LFI was able to make both absolute and differential measurements, the Planck team has never reported detection of a monopole signal at L2. Thus, no monopole signal has ever been found beyond the influence of Earth.
Did any of these instruments actually detect microwaves from the Cosmos? If you put a glass of water in a microwave oven and turn it on, does the water reflect or absorb the microwaves? A microwave oven emits microwaves – that’s why it’s called a microwave oven. The water placed inside it gets hot, and if left there long enough, vaporises. The same happens to a block of ice. Submariners also know that water absorbs microwaves. Radio communications by microwaves can’t be used for submarines when under water because the oceans and seas completely absorb them rapidly over a very short distance. Now it is well known from experiments that anything that absorbs also emits in the same frequencies, and so that which absorbs microwaves also emits microwaves. Thus water also emits microwaves in all its phases (solid, liquid, gas). About 70% of the surface of the Earth is covered by water, and there is water in the atmosphere. The atmosphere scatters radiation and microwaves are radiation. COBE-FIRAS carried a radiation shield, but this shield could not block microwaves from Earth because it was not designed for microwaves. All detections of the monopole signal have been from water on Earth, not from the Cosmos. All the alleged anisotropies are nothing but data-processing artefacts due to attempts to remove the microwave radiation from the foreground of the Milky Way, present in the microwave images. The alleged anisotropies are some 1 million times weaker than the monopole signal and some 1000 times weaker than the microwave noise due to the Milky Way. It is simply impossible for the spacecraft detectors to recover such a weak signal from such a strong enveloping noise level, even on the assumption that the anisotropies are present. However, they are not there, since there is no CMB. The so-called CMB does not come from the Cosmos [6, 7, 8].
There are a great many additional demonstrations that black holes, big bangs, and the Cosmic Microwave Background are figments of irrational imagination [9, 10, 11, 12, 13] but I will not detail them here. I was invited to present a talk about these and related matters at the Electric Universe conference held in Albuquerque, USA, in March 2014. My presentation, of which this article has been an overview, was recorded and is now freely accessible online:
Crothers, S. J., ‘The Parallax Effect on Short Hair’,
 NASA WISE, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise201220829.html
 Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, Matzner, R. A., Ed., CRC Press LLC,
 Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, 2002.
 Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press,
 Bland-Hawthorn, J., ABC News, station ABC1,
 Robitaille P.-M., WMAP: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.1, pp. 3-18, 2007, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF
 Robitaille P.-M., COBE: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp. 17-42, 2009, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF
 Robitaille P.-M., The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets, Progress in Physics, v.3, pp. 11-18, 2010, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-02.PDF
 Crothers, S. J., Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity, for the Proceedings of the XXIXth International Workshop on High Energy Physics,
 Crothers, S. J., Black Hole and Big Bang: A Simplified Refutation, http://viXra.org/abs/1306.0024
 Crothers, S. J., On The ‘Stupid’ Paper by Fromholz, Poisson and Will, http://viXra.org/abs/1310.0202
 Robitaille, P.-M., On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
 Robitaille, P.-M., The Cosmic Microwave Background, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI
The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) delivered a letter to the White House this morning for President Obama, in which it warned of the dangers expected from the ongoing climate change to decades of record cold weather.
This predicted historic event is caused by a rare, yet repeating 206-year cycle of the Sun which the SSRC calls a “solar hibernation.” During these hibernations, the Sun dramatically reduces the energy by which it keeps the Earth warm. In past occurrences of these solar hibernations, the Earth was struck by two of the worst cold climate periods ever recorded, each of which witnessed global crop devastation, civil and political strife, and warfare. One historian classified the last hibernation from 1793 to 1830, as the world’s “last great subsistence crisis.” That period was also called the Dalton Minimum, because of the scientist who kept track of temperatures then and the reduced energy output of the Sun as measured by a low number of sunspots during that period. The previous hibernation from 1615 to 1745 was called the Maunder Minimum and was far worse than the last hibernation both in terms of the depth, and extent of the cold epoch but also in the global crop devastation. Russian scientists are saying we are heading into another Maunder class solar hibernation starting this year.
On April 25, 2014 prominent skeptic climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer published his defense of the so-called greenhouse gas effect (GHE) titled, 'Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water.' It came in the form of a 10-point veiled attack against the organization that represents critics of such junk climate science. Below we publish Dr Pierre Latour's rebuttal to Spencer’s arguments.
Not referring to Principia Scientific International (PSI) by name Roy asserted we had been the cause of “the proliferation of bad arguments” the he found “almost dizzying.” Roy then set out his “Top 10 list” of key points raised by PSI that he then attempts to attack. But Roy omits posting a detailed version of the ‘theory’ he defends so we may critique it. This is a crucial issue, as readers need bear in mind there are over 63 competing official versions of the GHE. Indeed there are 'Almost as Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists.' So much for “settled science.”
In rebuttal to Roy’s Top Ten PSI’s Chairman, Dr Pierre Latour replies below in a thorough point-by-point fashion. These very same points were posted by Pierre on Roy’s blog more than two days ago without reply. Will Roy now run shy of open debate?
A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.
Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.
Prof Stavins, Harvard’s Professor of Business and Government, was one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of a key report published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this month.
His chapter of the 2,000-page original report concerned ways countries can co-operate to reduce carbon emissions.
IPCC reports are supposed to be scrupulously independent as they give scientific advice to governments around the world to help them shape energy policies – which in turn affect subsidies and domestic power bills.
Prof Stavins said the government officials in Berlin fought to make big changes to the full report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. This is the condensed version usually cited by the world’s media and politicians.
A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)
Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:
"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
One simple statistic is perhaps the sorriest indictment of the credibility of government climate ‘science.’ Did you know that the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them?
We were told “lower your carbon footprint!” We had to cut our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pay more taxes or face “tipping points” of “runaway” human-caused environmental disasters.
All because of a hypothesis about an invisible “heat trapping” blanket of CO2 that was going to fry us with higher global temperatures. But this century Nature hasn’t cooperated with the climate “experts.” If anything – quite the reverse has been happening – despite massive increases in human emissions of CO2 global cooling now seems a real threat.
Where it all went Horribly Wrong
So, we all know the basics of the global warming “theory.” We are told industrial emissions of burnt hydrocarbons are adding “man-made” CO2 to the atmosphere creating a potent chemical cocktail that dangerously “traps” more heat energy making our planet warmer. In a nutshell that’s the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHE) in play.
After 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scare stories independent scientists, specialists in a myriad of related disciplines, are speaking out about what they see is junk science. The “experts” - those generalists that dominate the undeniably infant field of research that is climate science – are finally being called to account. Climate realists are increasingly telling the alarmists to stop computer-modeling Earth as if it were a greenhouse! The reason is two-fold: first, it is obvious to experts from the “hard” sciences that Earth's atmosphere does not act in any way like a greenhouse. Second, and more embarrassing for the “experts,” despite a huge increase in human CO2 emissions over recent decades our planet stubbornly refuses to get any warmer. In short, the real world shows no proof of any CO2-driven GHE whatsoever.
Earth ‘Laboratory’ Proves No Greenhouse Gas Warming
For years now the scientifically illiterate mainstream media has been hyping government-sponsored man-made global warming alarm. Government-paid climate researchers were not subjected to the old-fashioned rigors of journalistic scrutiny. Instead, skeptics were ostracized and open debate eschewed because the science was somehow deemed “settled” and doomsayers of the cult wallowed in almost god-like eminence. Nowhere did we see investigative journalists probing the glaringly obvious fact that in the broader scientific community climatology is regarded as an infant field of study. As such, it is a field in which few, if any, aspiring first rate talented physicists, mathematicians, etc. would ordinarily choose as a career path.
Now let’s rewind to the 1980’s. Back then there were no university climatology faculties or academically qualified and trained climate scientists per se. But as climate change became a political hot issue a rag-tag array of third rate self-described experts - who invariably had little if any training in thermodynamics - came to the fore.
Built on a foundation of sand, the Leaning Tower of Pisa would have toppled over long ago, if not for ingenious engineering projects that keep it from tilting any further. The same thing is true of ethanol, automobile mileage, power plant pollution and many other environmental policies.
Not only are they built on flimsy foundations of peak oil, sustainability, and dangerous manmade climate change. They are perpetuated by garbage in-garbage out computer models and a system that rewards activists, politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations that support the hypotheses and policies.
At the heart of this system is the increasingly secretive and deceptive U.S. Environmental Protection Administration. Among its perpetrators are two ideologically driven regulators who are responsible for many of today’s excessive environmental regulations. When the corruption is combined with the EPA’s history of regulatory overkill and empire building, it paints a portrait of an agency that’s out of control.
EPA's culture of misconduct has already raised congressional hackles over the misuse of government credit cards (a recent EPA audit found that 93% of purchases were personal and contrary to agency guidelines); former regional EPA administrator (and now Sierra Club official) Al Amendariz wanting to “crucify” oil companies to make examples of them; and former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who masqueraded as “Richard Windsor” to avoid revelation and oversight of her emails with activists.
Explosive volcanic eruptions apparently shaped Mercury's surface for billions of years — a surprising finding, given that until recently scientists had thought the phenomenon was impossible on the sun-scorched planet.
This discovery could shed new light on the origins of Mercury, investigators added.
On Earth, explosive volcanic eruptions can lead to catastrophic damage, such as when Mount St. Helens detonated in 1980 in the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic event in U.S. history. [The 10 Biggest Volcanic Eruptions in History]
Explosive volcanism happens because Earth's interior is rich in volatiles — water, carbon dioxide and other compounds that vaporize at relatively low temperatures. As molten rock rises from the depths toward Earth's surface, volatiles dissolved within it vaporize and expand, increasing pressure so much that the crust above can burst like an overinflated balloon.
Mercury was long thought to be bone-dry when it came to volatiles. As such, researchers thought explosive volcanism could not happen there.
However, in 2008, after the initial flyby of Mercury by NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft (short for MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging), researchers found unusually bright reflective material dotting the planet's surface.
This stuff appears to be pyroclastic ash, which is a sign of volcanic explosions. The large number of these deposits suggested that Mercury's interior was not always devoid of volatiles, as scientists had long assumed.
THE 'TREASON OF THE INTELLECTUALS'
What stops the Earth from looking like Pluto is energy from the Sun. The quantity and type of energy coming from the Sun varies over cycles that range up to 1,500 years long.