Not to mention that little Swedish Goblin ...
Posted on 06/18/2025 11:08:17 AM PDT by SharpenedEdge
Issues & Insights
"Carbon dioxide, we’ve been told over and again, is the enemy that must be subdued if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming. It is, however, a faulty premise. Physics, not politics, tells us that man’s CO2 emissions will not cause catastrophic climate change nor an increase in extreme weather.
“The common belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the EPA Endangerment Finding assertion that ‘elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated’ to endanger the public health and welfare are scientifically false,” conclude the authors of a new paper.
Richard Lindzen and William Happer are not political hacks. They are serious researchers with extensive experience and robust academic backgrounds. Lindzen is emeritus professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Happer a Princeton University emeritus physics professor. What they have to say is important in a world that is sodden with climate-related myths and folk tales.
While Democrats and their leftist counterparts in other advanced nations have gone to war on carbon dioxide, Lindzen and Happer argue that cutting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and eliminating fossil fuel use “will have a trivial effect on temperature.”
How can they say this? After all, don’t 97% of scientists agree that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is causing our world to overheat? (They don’t, more on that later.)
Lindzen and Happer confidently make those statements because “unscientific evidence is the fundamental basis” behind the rush to net zero GHG emissions as well as the EPA’s claim that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”
More at the link.
(Excerpt) Read more at issuesinsights.com ...
He was referring to the person who wrote the article...
Tell me something, folks. I am 41 years old. I attended grade school in the very early 1990s, and in those formative years, I seem to recall from general science classes where we were told that animals (including humans) produce CO2, and plants take in that CO2 to produce oxygen through photosynthesis that animals (and by extension, we human beings) need in turn. Thus it’s a cycle of us making what plants need and plants making what we need.
Is that some sort of Mandela effect memory that I’ve just made up or am I mistaken?
You are not supposed to remember that.
IF???
The last paragraph:
Maybe we’ve reached a Solzhenitsyn moment in which we know they’re lying, they know they’re lying, and they even know that we know they’re lying. And they still don’t care, because for them it’s all about raw political power and the acquisition of other people’s money.
It was always about money and control, and it’s a big fat lie.
It was an obvious lie from the start, and it's done incalculable damage to our country. Welcome to the party, pal.
People control is what it was about. Cheap energy was what made the USA great and keep our economy the number one in the world. Europe heavily taxed theirs and that was what kept them down.
Then the global warming craze started (first started by the hysteria over atmospheric holes over Antarctica). They saw their chance to have complete control of us and to take the USA down a peg at the same time.
‘I wonder why so many Freepers are increasingly rude for no good reason.”
It was an obvious lie from the start, and it’s done incalculable damage to our country. Welcome to the party, pal.”
I’ve been here filling coolers with ice and lighting the charcoal grill for decades. But thanks....pal.
... said Captain Obvious.
POPULAR SCIENCE, Feb 1980..
PS/What’s News ....
page 73
Changing the weather intentionally or otherwise weather modification..(Earth cooling vs Greenhouse effect)
“Do you suppose we can learn enough, soon enough, to pull off a balancing act with the CO2 blanket saving us from another ice age?”
...
AND WE DID IT! Stopped THE COMING ICE AGE in it’s tracks with CO2! With in TEN YEARS the new scare was GLO-BULL WARMING!
At 41, are you old enough to be allowed to comment here?
I remember when holes in the ozone layer over Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo were supposed to grow and converge…..and then it would be like a giant magnifying glass and cook us all to death.
Not to mention that little Swedish Goblin ...
ping bttt
Hysteria is their jam...
“What if the Foundation of the Climate Scare Was a Calculated Lie?”
What if allowing tens of millions of military aged males into the country for “humanitarian reasons” was a calculated lie?
1.) IF the left truly believed that CO2 was going to end all life on the planet, why don't they do the simplest experiments in their public schools to verify this "reality"? Put a plant of the same species in six different aquariums, each with its own CO2 level, all other inputs being the same (water, sunlight, etc). By the end of the semester, see which plants are doing best, and how horrible it is for those with elevated CO2 levels...
(Hint: every plant, flower, crop, tree, and grass... ALL of them... maximize growth and photosynthesis between 750 and 1500ppm CO2... the globe is around 422 at the moment, and growing at 1.8ppm/yr. The Left is running a terror campaign on children, so that we can AVOID slowly getting closer to IDEAL conditions for all plant life on earth...
If you doubt that fact about plants thriving at elevated levels, simply call ANY local greenhouse and ask if they elevate their CO2 levels in their buildings. The VAST majority do.
And CO2 does not affect mammals or bird until at least 5000ppm, by the way...
And the planet has had CO2 levels of 7000ppm during at least 2 eras in the last 700m years, and didn't become a wasteland.)
2. Why don't schools or studies look at ALL sources of CO2?
Because, if they did, they would find that the oceans contribute HUNDREDS times more CO2 than all human activity, combined.
3. Why don't they look at any other components in the atmosphere? If the share of CO2 is rising, then the share of something else must be declining.
Well... once you start looking at these numbers, you find that the percentage of OXYGEN is actually rising FAR faster than CO2... and oxygen is just as poisonous to humans if the percentage is too large... just ask anyone who has ever had basic SCUBA training.
4. What is the actual effect of raising temperature by 2 degrees? Why is 76 so much worse than 74?
The plants and animals preferred regions might slowly shift, but they have done that for all of existence. Less icy tundra means more arable land, and more livable space for humans and animals.
5. What direct actual evidence is there that the oceans are rising as a result of CO2 levels? Even assuming there is more than simply computer modeling, What is the real world effect of an incredibly slow rise?
Several world cities already exist below sea level. All that's lost is beachfront property, at worst... and that only impacts wealthy humans, it doesn't disturb the plants and animals and the planet.
But the fact that nobody is asking these questions says a LOT about the state of the scientific community these days.
It is.
So you believed the Watermelons were pushing this agenda in good faith, and now, after 30 years of lies, you're just waking up to this? And you want dialogue in hushed and reverential tones, as the sh!t weasels methodically worked 24/7, for decades, to destroy us. I would ask you why your aren't furious, rather than calmly speculating, "Gosh, maybe they really were lying to us all this time."
Does this mean they can stop spraying aluminum, which causes dementia, into our atmosphere?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.