Climate Catastrophe

Townhall.com ^ | December 10, 2014 | John Stossel

[Crazieman]

EWWWWW LOGIC

[basil]

This article pretty much sums up what I have always believed.

[teeman8r]

Environmentalists will hate this because fossilfuels not only pollute, but overpopulate as well

On deaf ears

[marktwain]

This article makes the argument very well. Enviromentalism has become a religion.

[John O]

Go to Townhall and read the comments there too. Lots of great points brought up

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The earth is still warming from the Little ice Age of 1400 AD.

Global Warming has become a religion and is used to justify expanding government power.

[bjc]

30,000 versus 3 million is a conversation stopper. I will have to check his sources but, if validated, I am sure I will use it whenever the subject of climate change comes up.

[docbnj]

One problem with Epstein’s book is that it is quite expensive, whereas the climate alarmists issue many books at cheap prices. For every one person who reads Epstein’s book, there will be hundreds, or possibly thousands reading the climate-catastrophists’ views, many of them in school.

Check your public library holdings, and see which books they order.

As so often, the truth (or even reasonable debate) gets buried.

[PROCON]

The Branch Carbonian Cult.

[The Great RJ]

Yes, the climate is changing, but by forces over which we humans have no control. CO2 is only about 0.01% of our atmosphere and the global warming alarmists would have us believe that even a molecular level increase in CO2 ...we are talking parts per MILLION..will somehow cause climate collapse is ludicrous. If our climate were so fragile that the alteration of a single atmospheric gas by even a few parts per million would produce massive climate change, all life on earth would have ended eons ago. A SINGLE large volcanic eruption can easily put more climate changing gases into the upper atmosphere than a millenia of burning fossil fuels. We have historic records of single volcanic eruptions doing just that, e.g., Krakatoa in the 19th century and Mt. Pinatubo in the 20th. In both these cases global temperatures measurably went down, yet the climate survived.

This theory of human activity raising CO2 levels by a few parts per million causing climate collapse is pure BS and is not supported by true science, observed data nor the historical record. It is a false theory propagated as a dogma by climate zealots solely for political purposes.

[palmer]

CO2 is only about 0.01% of our atmosphere and the global warming alarmists would have us believe that even a molecular level increase in CO2 ...we are talking parts per MILLION..will somehow cause climate collapse is ludicrous.

0.04% (would be 0.03% without mankind's contributions). The point is that those molecules matter. There are more than enough of them (10^21 CO2 molecules per cubic meter) to capture the outgoing IR with the right wavelength and heat the rest of the atmosphere (N2 and O2).

A SINGLE large volcanic eruption can easily put more climate changing gases into the upper atmosphere than a millenia of burning fossil fuels

A single large volcano (Pinatubo) put 42 Mt CO2 into the atmosphere, see http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/gerlach/ Mankind puts out that much in half a day.

This theory of human activity raising CO2 levels by a few parts per million causing climate collapse is pure BS and is not supported by true science,

Well, there are some good points in what you are saying. Namely any "climate collapse" or wild weather is a negative feedback, so whatever warming is caused by CO2 is reduced by the amount of increase in the water cycle and some other weather effects.

[RipSawyer]

Negative feedback prevents the whole biosphere from collapse but a very large percentage of Americans mistakenly believe that negative feedback is bad and positive feedback is good. They don’t know that there is a difference between negative feedback in a physical self-regulating system and the negative feedback of the psychological theorist. I suspect that only a small minority understand that negative feedback is what makes a cruise control work and positive feedback creates an out of control system, a “runaway train”.

[Blue Collar Christian]

The whole climate issue has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with communists, actually fascists and their useful idiots, wanting to ban capitalism.

[palmer]

Basically with the sun as the energy source, the bulk of the climate system is made up of negative feedbacks: convection, lapse rate, cloud albedo. When the sun goes dim there are corresponding negative feedbacks to prevent iceball-earth: decreased convection, fewer clouds, etc. It has always struck me as bizarre that anyone would think that the earth’s climate has any substantial amount of positive feedback.

[JimRed]

If you take most environmentalists and climate scientists at their word...

Take the word of proven liars? I think not.

[Socon-Econ]

Let’s agree for the sake of argument that this recent warming was partly caused by humanity.
***********
Why agree with something absurd and unproven “for the sake of argument”? The environmental extremists are going to great lengths to force opponents to accept the science because they know that this will guarantee their result.

[GATOR NAVY]

30,000 versus 3 million is a conversation stopper. I will have to check his sources but, if validated, I am sure I will use it whenever the subject of climate change comes up.

And it's not just total numbers-in 1931 the global population was less than 1/3 of what it is today, so that 3 million would be the same as over 10 million perishing today.

[bjc]

True, but the simple contrast is so powerful it should even give a liberal pause to think.

[Bon mots]

What is wrong with these people using facts to destroy perfectly good 'science'?

:P :)