“In praise of CO2″
Unconventional wisdom from Lawrence Solomon at the Financial Times in response to the global warming alarmists:
Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.
Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
15 CommentsWhite House lied, jobs died
May 11, 2012 09:49 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsDrilling moratorium probe update: Green stonewallers caught red-handed
May 10, 2012 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 CommentsHillary Clinton convinces China to allow dissident and family to accompany her back to the US join ‘Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves’
May 5, 2012 11:17 AM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Tens of thousands to fly to Rio to discuss how to limit greenhouse gas emissions
May 3, 2012 07:03 PM by Doug Powers
51 Comments
Obama energy solutions: Chicken crap is the new algae
April 30, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
145 Comments
EPA’s “Crucify them” guy throws himself under the bus
April 30, 2012 12:41 PM by Michelle Malkin
60 Comments
Fox Sports baseball analyst does Al Gore a solid during MLB broadcast
April 29, 2012 10:49 AM by Doug Powers
61 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
JustOneMinute
» Their Lips Are UnsealedPundit & Pundette
» A "convoluted, ongoing nightmare"American Thinker
» The Left and Con Menprotein wisdom
» Obama not doing so well in states he probably can’t win anywayBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebBetsys Page
» Why the recovery has failed
This is what happens when you develop your role models from Saturday morning Sci-Fi channel movies.
A bunch of monkey spankers who want to step in and save the world. Unfortunately there is no godzilla or space aliens to fight so they dog pile on common sense.
Its a lot like fantasy role play games.
Real scientists are too busy working to waste time with this nonsense. Other than a power point show from a lonely fat guy, where is the real evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny?
Sorry – there is none.
Spot on Michelle. I live in Nevada where we have been opposing the nuclear waste dump for decades without any scientific reason whatsoever. It’s all political. The Dhimmicrats scare voters into thinking that storing nuclear waste is dangerous just to get elected. We get more radioactive exposure from the DIRT in our backyards than we would if we were up there right next to the containers. Where has real science gone?
Yet, the same dimwits who oppose nuclear power have bought into the whole anti-carbon movement. I feel like I’m in a bad sci-fi movie.
It never ceases to amaze me how the MSM only presents one side of this issue as if it were gospel …
which is all the more proof that it is not science … it has become a religion to the environuts …
yet we don’t see the ACLU trying to stop this global warming junk science religion from being taught in our schools …
a consensus does not scientific fact make …
Sigh…the environmentalist wackos aren’t going to be happy until we are all lighting our rooms with eco-safe candles, hewing our letters into recycled stone tablets and riding genetically engineered no-emission donkeys to work.
This is a serious undertaking and what bothers me most is some environut triggering a Holocaust. I’m almost positive some of these radical psychos could justify killing 100 to 200 people to reduce carbon.
100 to 200 million people*
There is no doubt, the radical environmentalist would put human life below that of any so-called other organic life.
To them the loss of human life would be a benefit to the “planet.”
Although the planet itself has remained neutral in it’s position of whether or not we are a nuisance.
Just another case of the doctor over-prescribing cures, whether the patient needs them or not.
Just “Waiting To Exhale”. More junk science. Our own breath and cattle flatulence, what next ? This would be laughable if they weren’t so damned serious.
Ironically, this would not stop the release of carbon dioxide, as the decaying bodies would release carbon dioxide, the same way that decaying vegetation releases CO2.
Global Warming/Climate Change nuts would serve the world better with self-flagellation rather than putting everyone else through the wringer. But as my daughter was taught in science classes in school this year (10th grade), Humans are the number one threat to the environment. Luckily, my daughter is extremely intelligent, and challenges these assertions in class, and even created a poster questioning the value and benefit of recycling, which her teacher thought was fantastic.
#10……what is it, a big plug ?
LOL, Actually, I think that describes the Politician Flatulence Suppressant. Well, half of it, anyways. The other half is a ball gag and nose plug.
Remember … the CO2 is recycled by plants through photosynthesis to produce … gasp … Oxygen … so that we can continue to breathe and produce more CO2 to produce more Oxygen to breathe again and again … it is the natural cycle … if they succeed in stopping CO2 they will also succeed in reducing Oxygen … doesn’t sound very human friendly to me …
I admit, maybe I was always just too simple about it, but I remember from biology that animals (and humans) used oxygen, made carbon dioxide as waste, and that plants used the CO2, and generated oxygen as their waste. I always thought “What happens to the plants if we get rid of the CO2?” Seems like it screws with the processes of nature.
#10
I kid you not There is a fart shot to prevent animals from emitting methane.
These nut jobs are the reason that gas hit $4.00 per gallon today (national average). Perhaps if it hits $5.00 by Nov. people will vote the Dems out of office.
#16
They will just blame bush. Because you know bush writes the laws in DNC lala land. Even though the dems control congress.
Let’s see here…
The Earth is covered with water over 3/4 of its mass. The temperature of the Earth, as well as other planets in our solar system, had been on the increase until about 10 years ago. The Earth, based on the geological record provided by drilled core samples, has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout its history, and most of those periods in the geological record occurred before the industrial revolution. And finally, the Earth still is recovering from the little ice iage that occurred in the middle ages, and prior to the onset of the little ice age, the Earth was warmer that it is even today.
It is absolute folly to plot a course of action based on a unsophisticated theory that man made CO2 causes global warming. In fact, there appears to be more evidence pointing to the inverse – that warming causes increases in levels of CO2.
Yet much of the world, including our own Congress, is trying to enact legislation that will cost us trillions of dollars and have ZERO effect on CO2 levels. The Chicken Littles have taken over the world.
#12…….a ball gag ? Sounds like something Mark Morford would be into.
Bingo! Even with the removal of partisan politics from the whole go-green concept/global warming farce, I often find myself behaving in some pretty “un-green” ways, such as refusing to recycle my empty cans, just out of spite for the heavy-handed tactics environmentalists like those in the article and Gore’s green gorilla-warriors employ to force me into compliance with their ridiculous edicts and acceptance of their non-empirically based science.
Not a change. It never works that way. The American people have a long standing tradition of blaming the President, particularly a Republican president, for everything bad that happens on his term. Bush in his endless efforts to cozy up to the Democrats should have known that. He does in fact deserve a lot of blame for political naiveté if nothing else. Oh well, better luck next time RINOs.
So what will the democrats do as soon as they attain power in all three branches of government (they already have complete power in the Education – Media – Bureaucracy Triangle)? Simple, they will institute price controls. To be fair, economic illiterate McCain would probably do the same.
Sorry, that should have been “not a chance.”
After we tackle this problem, it’s on to the even bigger issue of unicorn overpopulation and it’s effect on our plastic reserves.
Ya, this is right in the environmentalists wheel house. It’s not the weather, it’s the politics. However, with Al Gore it’s greed. With McStupid, it’s global warming mongering that demonstrates the value of his life experience. Is he not a true environmentalists and what a truly fine POTUS he will be.
beenthere #21, your right. I sit at my pc, read and do some research on various subjects keeping in mind the author of such info and how valid it is. I come to the conclusion man made global warming which is tied to co2 production is the biggest farce and scam to ever come down the human pike. So, i ask myself can the average person in America really be that stupid, to believe that crap? Then i venture out to the store or run an errand and i’ll be damned i find the answer to my question, YEP, their that stupid. We’re in trouble, big time.
The NUMBER #1 GREEN HOUSE GAS IS……..
WATER VAPOR!
author Michael Crichton…”likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.
Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?”
There is a message in the whole global warming absurdity. And that message is this:
The AGW zombies have their much vaunted “scientific consensus”, which is reached mainly by ignoring thousands of highly educated scientists who disagree with the whole AGW myth. When confronted with that fact, the AGW fascists will attempt to marginalize the dissenting scientsts, will attack their interlocutors by calling them names, and invoke illogical, irrational forms of argumentation.
We should pay close attention to this strategy, as the left-wing kooks who run the Democratic party seem to have studied history well, and have learned much from the likes of Musollini, Goebbels and Stalin.
With the press in their pockets, Democratic control of the White House and of Congress will ensure the suppression of any voices that dissent from their Marxist agenda. We’ll have years of economic enslavement of the productive sector in the name of such misguided policies as removing CO2, “helping” the “poor”, etc.
The good news is that, much like the Workers Paradise, modern liberalism will eventually be revealed for the massive fraud that it is. Sadly, we may go though some pretty dark times during and after.
But let’s not be complacent: as went the Soviet Union, so will we go, unless this madness can be revealed for what it is.
So you dig a hole 1 mile or so down. Put in a big elevator, then dig a bunch roads and rooms. On the top side, build a train station, truck warehouse, commissary, a big old fence, guys in towers with binoculars and guns, guys with clip boards and little shacks writing down everyone that comes in goes out.
Then you get deliveries packed in state of art containers by paranoids, regulated by the science-challenged, guarded by the national police force.
Oh yeah, everything costs an arm and leg but electricity users won’t notice a thing.
Take the deliveries down the elevator, put it in a room, check on the room every year or two, and go dig some more roads and rooms in another direction.
Here’s the best thing: if you get a job there, you and your replacements will have jobs for the next 250,000 years or so.
What really perplexes me: why states aren’t begging to have this sort of deal?
People who are trying to get rid of CO2 are just racist against plant-life.
End plant racism now, envirohippies!
And that is the whole problem. Environmentalism long ago ceased to be about saving the planet, instead metastasizing into a venue for communism. They don’t care about the planet anymore, except insofar as pretending to do so gains them power and control over our lives.
I just wanted to let our tree hugging friends know that I contributed to global warming yesterday evening. My family ate grilled chicken and pork…cooked with charcoal. The night before that, steaks with…propane.
The global warming fanatics are driven not so much by science as by their own personal psychology. One result of this is it’s impossible to reason with them, as it’s not about objective facts, but rather about their own attitude towards the world. Their method is to scare others onto their side via emotion with scenes of melting glaciers, a projection of a receding Florida coastline, or a picture of a polar bear trapped on an ice floe. But they don’t have any idea of the real effect of global warming, how much we can affect it, and to what degree the cost and pain of doing so would be worth it. You can’t reason with people who don’t use reason to come to their position. They may be right, but it would be by accident. They haven’t come to their position through a reasoned process. And yet they think people who don’t want to launch a huge expensive program against global warming are crazy.
My problem with the ENVIRI-WACKOS is exactly what we are discussing. Feel good, warm and fuzzy ideas that are not fully studied for their effects vs benefits. Example ETHANOL. Benefit bio-fuels. Effect feed grain and food for humans prices dramatically raised. Mt only hope is that saner scientific minds will take root and at least start a DEBATE on all of the ENVIRO-WACKOS plans. But hope is fading…
These people are super-retarded. Getting rid of carbon dioxide which as some have pointed out is plant food is not “going green”. You could call it a number of things but green I not one of them. A green house does not exist on Earth, you can’t find a natural one anywhere, it must be constructed. Built by people so, you know, they can segregate that area from the rest of the atmosphere thereby creating a greenhouse, idiots. Make no mistake it is the bike riding skateboard playing numbnuts who are young many of them attending a US college recently, and as could be predicted learned nothing, that are trying to sell us this bs. Look you can send a monkeys uncle to the university but you can’t make him think.
The other group the older fools are trying like the dickens to influence our kids, they know kids are easy to fool and just like a lib they will use them as they need to and then throw them away when they are finished with them. Its no coincidence that they really went full speed ahead after 9-11, they are ascared !@#$less they had to find a distraction it was/is just too much for their little brains on spineless bodies to handle. Like I heard George Will say when asked what the main difference between lib and conservative thinking was, short answer, truth or confusion, spot on I must say. These people can’t keep their families together, their finances in order and you think they can save the world from itself? Good gosh!
These people are scary, dangerous, we have seen their kind before in places like Salem Mass. or overseeing an inquisition somewhere. Don’t forget Hitler was a socialist environmentalist too. No I’m not saying they are Hitler’s, shoot, a group of these morons put together couldn’t make a decent Hitler.
It’s the PC effect.
Questioning eco-fanaticism is politically incorrect, don’t you know.
Here in MN they are delaying the building or improving of a coal fired energy plant because of studies they wish to conduct. The rationale? ” Better to be safe and know everything , than sorry later.” Anyone besides me see the hypocrisy?
Rather than understand the true workings of the sun and earth billions of years old, we knee jerk our way back to the 18th century with this crap called global warming.
Good points all. Bottom line? You cannot turn those who actually believe this crap. Ever try to get into it with an Obama Supporter? It’s off the chart frustrating, as they are for him “just because”. This is no different. Even as the evidence piles up refuting this scam, they run to the cliff…
The saddest thing is that we (conservatives/ republicans) are supposed to be the adults. The ones who let the babies whine and cry while we protect them from themselves, and simply do the right thing. That is no longer true, as our side is being infected with PCness at an alarming rate.
Michele, I submitted this NBC news (sic) story when it first aired, but it didn’t make the cut. Here is my chance to share this idiotic fabrication about the poor wildebeests suffering from climate change.
See if you can spot ANY FACTS connecting climate with the poor wildebeests getting eaten by lions and crocs.
Brian Wilson kept a straight face – great acting job!
What a crock. (pun intended)
As I was typing my last entry, we had a minor earthquake in my home town.
As long as we know how to solve Global Warming, why not
STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT ?
and
HALT TECTONIC PLATE MOVEMENT ?
Michael Chriton’s “State of Fear” is an excellent critique of the enviro movement, though the story itself is pretty silly. I highly recommend it.
Would Obama stop giving speeches if he received an inoculation?
I recall another poster here warning about the dangers of GLOBAL SHAKING.
And there is the answer; junk science to be sure but their only answer to anything is NO.
I saw one of the Eco Cartoons on Hannity and Colmbs the other night. She was against all oil drilling, coal plants, nuclear plants. Solar and Wind the clown brayed like a whipped donkey. Solar and Wind may well be part of our solution but I doubt anyone who has studied the issue thinks they will be a major source of energy anytime soon.
They talk about electric cars but without new generating plants how do we get the electricity? Solar can help but it won’t do the whole job just yet.
No, these eco clowns are basically anti-growth, anti individual transportation and anti free standing homes for us lessers. Basically they are anti autonomy for us lessers and wish up dependant on the state. If they can drive up the cost of energy enough they will succeed. And if they get their Cap and Trade it is just about over. With both McCain and MommaObama’s husband in favor of Cap and Trade I worry a lot.
I agree. It should take at least 30 years to document and validate the environmental impact of reducing carbon dioxide which trees need to perform photosynthesis.
You would think that just one of these oh so insightful columnists would take the time, say six months, to learn something about the science behind scientists’ claims about global warming.
But no. From Krauthammer to Will to this nut, they claim to be able to discern correctness without understanding the arguments.
Thank you, thank you everyone, for this generous recognition…
Huh?
Oh, I thought you were talking about me. Sorry.
Three words: grade school science.
Why does anyone need to be reminded of this? Isn’t CO2 one of our chief bodily end products? Do I need to explain what my nickname here means? (I think I just did.) I thought we all learned this stuff when we were kids. I’m curious to know what current elementary science textbooks say about photosynthesis and the extent of such textbooks proselytizing about GW.
If the green movement wants us to cut down on CO2 emissions, why don’t they just shut their mouths?
By the way, Wired Magazine has a surprisingly moderate-minded article on GW. I think the tech-savvy in our audience will be able to find it if they’re interested. I’ve got enough links in this comment already.
Possible t-shirt slogans ahead — Remember: CO2 is not the enemy. Or — cut down on CO2: stop breathing.
I apologize for my brief arrogance about my nickname. I’ll try my best not to do it again.
Wrong again lgm. but why give up the streak? You are good at it, if nothing else.
Mmm, lgm. Well, that’s it, you convinced me that I was wrong. I’m switching my view now.
That was easy, wasn’t it? Because you were oh so insightful. Wise-acre comments always make me stop to consider the other side of things.
Oops, I’m guilty as charged. What can I say? Nothing that’ll convince you, since I can be a wise-acre myself. You’ve read the “arguments,” as in both sides equally (pretty hard thing to do, I imagine, based on the media’s consensus). Are you truly 100% convinced?
Don’t assume that you know more than Solomon or me or anyone else about global environmental variables. And don’t insinuate our stupidity because we maintain our skepticism (uh oh, does that justify 9/11 Truthers and the grassy knoll theory?). To beat you to the punch, my earlier comment was not meant to call anyone stupid. It was meant to call attention to a detail that many seem to have forgotten, as Solomon’s article meant to do.
Solomon, Krauthammer, Will — lone voices amidst the din. Or are they?
The debate is not over.
How is destroying the economy of the only country in the world that actually is doing something to protect the environment going to help solve this problem whether it is real or imaginary?
Therein lies the problem … there has been no debate … only one-sided proclamations from the Goracle and his lemmings …
The Democrat party is better named the Lemm-o-crat party … it’s full of environuts following this BS right over the cliff in true Lemming style …
No noteworthy scientists want -all- CO2 removed from the atmosphere. They, and I, want CO2 restored to pre-industrialization levels, the levels we know are safe and are compatible with our biosphere. Isn’t -not- signficantly altering our life support system, the environment, the truly conservative thing to do?
Well, is it just coincidence that environmental awareness blossoms during periods of war, like back the late ’60s early ’70s and now? I guess it’s a lot easier for many to deal with saving cute polar cubs and North Slope Bambis from climatic devils than courageously facing the ugly mug of an implacable enemy and mindset who wants to kill you and your family in the most brutal way.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
.
I have a question for lgm — Is the information you refer to a study of causes, or of apparent effects of “Global Warming?”
The reason I ask is becasue every time I see a report it seems to be stating things like the temperature has risen or that Northern sea ice appears to be thinning. These things are un-argueable, if one only looks at the thermometer and some sattelite data.
The problem I have with that is that I have not seen conclusive data or stories that indicate the cause is the collection of carbon containing compounds in the atmosphere.
It is true that CH4 and CO2, for example, can retain heat. The big question is are they actually retaining heat in the atmosphere?
If it is true that other planets in the solar system are also showing signs of increased temps then shouldn’t we be looking for a more obvious possible cause?
I’m going to leave you with this: every time sufficient counter-evidence is produced to debunk and egg-head’s pet theory his ultimate response is “you just don’t understand the science.”
I understand it snowed in Bahgdad last year for the first time in recorded history. If the GW nuts were right in their theories, it shouldn’t have. And weather patterns change without the help of man, so don’t drag out that red herring.
Oh oh. Ok, nobody tell him about volcanic activity.
I took my last science class when we could look out of the cave and marvel at dinosauers roaming the earth – so could someone explain to me why plants getting carbon dioxide for food and giving off oxygen we can breathe is bad? Just asking. While we’re at it, please explain how water evaporating and coming back as rain on said trees and crops is considered “wasting water”?
In the 70′s the envirowackos were blaming Global Cooling on Industrial emissions and predicting the end of the world. Now they’ve flip-flopped to the emissions causing warming.
Idiots…
“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.” Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.” The Cooling World, Newsweek April 28, 1975
They wanted the ice cap melted!! So now you’d think they’d be happy… but NOOOoooo.
Environmentalist leaders believe the Malthusian concept of the world and want to be winners in a zero-sum game. Simple as that. They’ve used eugenics and the like but why go to all the trouble when people willingly give up their lives and resources to save the warm and fuzzy (man-eating) polar bears. The followers are just ignorant of the evil they spread. Environmentalists want to suck vital chemicals like carbon dioxide out of our air. They want crop shortages. They want to eliminate all advances in agriculture. They want to get rid of protein-rich meat. They want to rob us of all sources of energy and industry. Simply put, they want billions of people to die so they have more breathing room. We must halt their advances at all cost or face more perilous times.
What were those pre industrialized levels? If the stats even exist they might want to factor in two things. One, deforestation, yes if it’s as bad as is said it will have an effect, rotting vegetation is/was/whoknows, the number two cause of carbon dioxide. Two, the conversion from livestock and all that goes with it as the primary mode of transportation to machinery. Carbon dioxide and methane are regularly belched in large amounts from the Earths numerous Volcanoes as AlohaGuy noted. Billions and billions of years yet somehow the Earth carries on. Look, they told us that the Alaska pipeline would kill the caribou, heck, they love it they raise their young under it for cryin out loud. I remember when science said that Y2K would usher in the apocalypse, where’s it at? Remember the planetary alignment of 2001 that was supposed to destroy Earth, no prolly not, I suppose they would prefer to forget that one. Hey the world was supposed to be over by 2000 so we are living on borrowed time anyway. I happen to know for sure that the world will last at least until the 25th century, yeah I saw the show Buck Rogers, in the 25th Century it was.
I lurk here a lot and recognize several frequently recurring posters. I wonder, has lgm, ever been on the rational side on any topic?
The truth is you produce more carbon dioxide just hitching up your oxen than you do getting in your car and driving to the store.
And the fattest pied piper (al) laughs all the way to the bank at the morons that are buying into the biggest hoax of all time. Watch your wallets folks.
lonewolf
I think the fact that you even had to ask that question provided you with the answer …
In this age of computers and electronics,
Must we listen to the Dems’ histrionics?
They say the islands are sinking!
I ask, “What are they thinking?
Haven’t they ever studied what’s called ‘Plate Tectonics’?”
If they ban all there is of CO2,
Then what is our plant life to do?
It’s THEIR source of “air”
But do the Dem’s care?
Not a whit unless Gore says, “It’s true!”
Thanks, DL, for reading.
Thanks, gL, for a coherent point. I have no problem with attempting to reduce pollution. But to restore CO2 levels to pre-industrialization levels, we’d have to eliminate industry, which we can’t. If you want to reduce pollution, have at ‘er. If we want to plant more trees, I’m all for it. But since we’re destroying the Amazon forest in order to produce ethanol, I think the government ought to keep its hands out of the discussion.
Another thing that bothers most of us skeptics, I believe (and one of the main things that bothers me), is the incessant pugnacious attitude of the most visible environmentalists and their disciples, who have thrown objectivity out the window, who quash any dissent. Some people recognize that they’re being lectured at with brainwashing techniques by those who refuse to abide by their own rules.
How do we know exactly what levels are safe? How do we know that humanity is responsible, if global-climate-whatever exists? Things will happen that will devastate the planet’s ecosystems, regardless of humanity’s impact, as small or as large as our impact is presumed to be. The earth has adapted. Of course we shouldn’t do nothing to lessen our impact. However, expectations should be realistic. Rome wasn’t built…you know the rest.
Various industries are working on creating less pollutants, on making us more aware of the effects of pollution. Good for us. While this is good for boosting sales (or hurting sales, based on customers who avoid buying from them out of spite), they use their neoenvironmentalism to pat themselves on the back while pooh-poohing and trying to shame the rest of us who haven’t found the same enlightenment.
We have a needle to thread in the next five to fifty years, depending on the sources. We heard the same thing thirty years ago. But now we really mean it. Is anyone surprised that we tend to hear echoes of Chicken Little or the boy who cried wolf? The conservative backlash to a socialist agenda is necessary and shouldn’t be ignored. The devil’s in the details, and not all of the details have been disseminated.
If everyone cared as much about terrorism, we’d be much further ahead in our progress in that area. To think that the threat of global warming is more important to many than the threat of terrorism is baffling to me.
If scientists agree that CO2 is not the enemy, then they should let the media know, because I think they missed the point.
Oh, and here’s that link to the Wired Magazine story I mentioned in post #46.
I saw that the floodgates were open a crack, so I rushed through. Thanks again for reading.
The short answer is NO. lgm’s posts are always limited to drive-by snideness and utterly mindless repetition of liberal dogma. He NEVER bothers to make a case about anything.
He is our Resident Troll.
He put the “jerk” in “Knee-jerk Liberal.”
“This nut” Solomon, as lgm calls him, knows the scientific arguments inside and out, having written a number of columns about it that wound up in a book (“The Demiers”), quoting MANY scientists who think human-induced GW is a crock.
And btw lgm: that’s “Dr.” Krauthammer to you. He’s an MD, which means he has a helluva lot greater science background than you do, Mr. math teacher.
Now please, lgm, go back to playing with your imaginary and irrational numbers; they suit you.
Where to begin,
When stupid is IN,
oBORGama in 08,
Intelligence deteriorate.
To answer your question Lonewolf, NO ! LGM is always on the uphill side of a bong hit. Clouds the mind ya know.
I don’t know, I think lgm gets all the respect due him.
Pie are square & Et vous êtes aussi
Night all.
LGM is someone who believes that pi is exactly 3..
Went to the Richmond Science museum a couple of weekends ago.. one of the exhibits on the oceans and plankton.. and how Carbon is a main source of feed for plankton, and that plankton is the starting link for all of the food chain..
As well as record growth in forests in Germany and elsewhere..
So.. the conservative thing to do is to go back before any modern refrigeration or anything else like that?..
you missed the argument.. co2 isn’t causing GW.. GW helped cause co2..
that is the debate.. and that even if we are in a warming trend…
and you really think that MAN can ‘clean’ up co2 out of the atmosphere? Next man will try to take the salt out of the ocean..
On June 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm,
And WHO gets to determine what the ‘correct’ CO2 concentration is supposed to be? Why pick a random fleck of time just before industrialization? What makes you think that THAT is representative of ‘normal’??? Over millions of years of earth’s history we are at very LOW point in CO2. If you agree to an average over the last 600 million years you are agreeing to like 5 to 8 times MORE CO2 than now as well as to temperature many degrees higher than now.
Dispute this.
And I think you are a perfect candidate to take THIS QUIZ.
Sorry you ‘green’ idiots, you can’t grow a tree under a solar panel and you can’t put a solar panel under a tree.
That would really make me laugh if not for the fact that these stupid people exist in such huge numbers and vote.
Then what do you say about people like Frederick Seitz or Richard Lindzen? Are they all a bunch of nuts?
RESPOND please …
That’s a very interesting statement. It would seem to suggest a possible strategy for resisting over-reaching environtmental projects — make them subject to same regime of environmental impact studies as required by existing law for commercial ventures.
It could be that the greatest threat to the environment today is the worldwide governmental response to this ridiculous figment of AGW Doomsday. Wouldn’t it be ironic if what saved us from disaster at the hands of this generation’s environmentalists was the laws enacted as a result of the work of the last?
DaveC said:
Not that many years ago the state of Kentucky (If I remember correctly) tried to pass a law that pi is 3 because it says so in the Bible. The unhinged Christian hating left defeated that.
I went to a technical college. We had no football team but we did have a school chant that went in part:
Cosine Secant Tangent Sine!
Three point one four one five nine!
Danceswithdachshunds said:
I think those two are nuts. It’s interesting that you stopped there. There is no large group of qualified scientists on the “no global warming” side. You listed them all already.
And brilliant scientists can be nuts. Shockley (co-inventor of the transistor)was “out there“. The guy who invented PCR (a way to replicate DNA) is a big advocate of LSD.
That’s why we don’t take the opinions of individual scientists. We look to the consensus of the scientific community.
Really. And C+/D college science student Gore should be our savior?
I have taken the time to review the “science” and present several questions you need to ask yourself before believing the Chicken Littles of the global warming fad:
1) What is the climate of the Earth supposed to be? (was more of the planet’s history warmer or colder than it is now?)
2) Will excess (your term) carbon dioxide be beneficial or detrimental to plant life, including blue green algae? Part B: How will that affect crops, oxygen production, and the overall state of starvation across the world?
3) Is it carbon dioxide (and methane etc.) or water vapor that is more meaningful to the actual planet’s temperature/climate?
4) Will there be global warming in the future if man completely cuts his/her carbon dioxide production?
5) Why is there “global warming” on Mars?
6) Why was the last interglacial period marked by 18 foot sea level rises? Part B: was man to blame?
7) Considering the geologic history of the planet, wasn’t oxygen a greater pollutant than carbon dioxide could ever hope to be?
9) Shouldn’t Al Gore and other so called celebrities “walk the walk” on conservation and ecology?
10) Wouldn’t it be insightful for lgm to gather a few facts before defecating on a thread? (and if the defecation was accompanied by methane, should he be penalized some way?)
Over 31,000 American scientist have signed a petition that states:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And those are the ones that won’t be hounded by the econuts on campus.
Those who do not wish to share the warm, dark place where lgm’s head resides can read “The Deniers”, by Lawrence Solomon, the guy at the top of the thread. He interviews top climatologists from all over the globe who think human-induced global warming is a crock. If you don’t want to shell out $$ for the book, the articles it’s based on are on-line.
If you go to Amazon you’ll find other books with the same theme, ALL backed with facts.
You can also check out climateaudit.org: it’s a bit technical, but if you have any technical background you can watch Steven McIntyre slice, dice and dissect the green weenies’ tendentious arguments, falsified (or secret) data. For example, nose around on the web and you’ll learn how NASA keeps tweaking its data to make them, shall we say, more compelling to the Green Weenie zealots.
Like Gore, who won’t debate any of these scientists because “the debate is over”, lgm obstinately refuses to take notice of the huge “pushback” among scientists who see the GW issue as politicizing and thus corrupting science.
The debate isn’t over; it’s just getting started.
And again, lgm betrays any knowledge of how science is done by trotting out the “consensus” argument. In science, there’s no….such….thing. Bohr overturned Einstein who overturned Newton who, along with Galileo and others, overturned Aristotle.
The theory of AGW is not scientific, in that it cannot be tested. There is NO experiment that can be done to falsify or confirm it, because no human being is capable of modeling the earth’s climate EXCEPT by dumbing it down via computer models that do not even take into account such key factors as cloud cover and water vapor. I
f lgm knew science, he would know that simply repeating another scientist’s opinion without subjecting it to falsification is NOT consensus, and NOT the way scence works.
Finally, the utter illogic of pointing to Shockley as a “nut” and concluding THEREFORE Lawrence might be, is so loopy that one can only wonder if lgm is playing with a full deck.
What part exactly of – “There are MORE scientists that DISAGREE with the IPCC than agree with them!” is it that you fail to comnprehend?
You are the ones who is nuts. There are 40 members of the National Academy of Science in the list! And then there are
9000 PHD’s ? What about THEM? Here are SCIENTIFIC backgrounds and numbers of some of the signers at The Petition Project (I left off the thousands more of MD’s and general science/engineers for brevity. I’ll be on the list myself soon…)
Here is PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE that refutes the alarmism by you, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the IPCC
I am convinced that you are a paid shill for some leftist group.
Wonder?
Good point about how politics and this ‘consensus’ crap is corrupting science. However, it doesn’t end there because environmentalism itself is being threatened by this Al gore scam. It used to be that the word ‘green’ meant something in favor of plants and trees – almost all of whom LOVE having much more CO2 to live on than we have now.
They can’t reconcile that fact or that there isn’t single piece of physical evidence to support their claim so they consistently ignore them .. just as LGM will.
Here’s more about lgm’s alleged consensus:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/congress_fiddled_with_warming.html
“Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon:
“I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record. There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed – I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.”
The score thus far:
Reality-based scientists: infinity
Bong-hugging airheads : dick
Danceswithdachshunds said (#78):
That link is not peer reviewed. It refers to peer reviewed science, but it itself is not. If it were, there would be a citation somewhere in it.
Oh shut the eff up, will you, lgm?
You entered this thread repeating a mindless claim about “consensus”. I and others have pulverized that nonsense, so what do you do? Move onto something else w/o admitting error. Just as you always do.
Emily Litella comes to mind: “Never mind”. Or that twit who flits in and out of scenes saying inane things in the movie “Airplane”.
Dealing with you is just an on-line version of whac-a-mole.
btw: anyone bothering to link to the site #78 and lgm refer to will see that it offers a SUMMARY of PEER-REVIEWED scientific articles, with ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO citations.
So lgm’s quibble is nothing but that: an immaterial criticism , one that refuses to address the FACTS that (1) there is NO “consensus”, and (2) there is a lot of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE refuting the theory of AGW.
And if lgm is being paid by leftists to shill for AGW they should demand their money back, because he…is…a…..clown…who …beclowns himself…every time he writes.
Oh puhleeze! I happen to have some not insignificant experience with peer reviews, and I can tell you that there is a huge “tell them what they want to hear” factor to get funding. When the politics influence science, and this influences who gets funding and who does not, it sure as hell isn’t “consensus.” Actually, it is a form of fraud.
And lgm: how about a few answers to my questions in post #76? Question 10 is optional, but relevant nonetheless.
C’mon, lgm! And bring your pooper scooper!
Excellent point!
Did you mean “beshat himself” instead of “beclowns himself?”
Just asking!
I believe the latter subsumes the former!!!
(at least it ought to)
reminds me of an old simpsons gag:
Grampa Simpson is riding in the back seat with the kids.
Marge, who’s driving, looks in the rear view mirror and asks:
“Grampa, are you sitting on the apple pie I bought?”
Grampa, plaintively: ” I sure hope so!”
And that’s all any of these environitwits can say. Don’t look at the peer reviewed science that disproves Al Gore and the AGW hysterics – focus on those who DARE to place that peer reviewed science on the table as evidence because no one reviewed them. It’s hard science fact that is being presented in that petition and not one AGW nitwit, certainly not lgm, can refute it.
Tell us lgm – WHO reviewed the computer model coding at the IPCC? Other computer modelers?
Stop making sense!!!!!
lgm, lgm, Bueller, Bueller…..
Unfortunately, many of the people in what the left calls the scientific community are really not scientists.