In actuality, they will destroy our nations ability to "have enough to spare" to take care of environmental concerns. They will have equal misery for all to redistribute then.
Posted on 10/12/2009 3:20:51 AM PDT by Man50D
As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.
John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.
“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”
“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”
The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.
“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”
“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.
“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.
Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.
“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”
“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.
“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”
Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.
In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.
The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.
Many in the room laughed at his comment, but the crowd that gathered in the Rose Garden just moments earlier heard Obama use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an opportunity to again issue a warning about the threat of global warming.
“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children – sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities,” Obama said.
Marc Morano, former congressional staffer and founder of the Web site climatedepot.com, told the crowd that he thinks the tide is turning against what he called global warming alarmists. He cited a call by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to hold a global warming trial.
“The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial ‘complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect,’” Morano wrote in an editorial he distributed at the event.
In actuality, they will destroy our nations ability to "have enough to spare" to take care of environmental concerns. They will have equal misery for all to redistribute then.
My questions to those passionately pushing the anti-CO2 drivel are three:
1. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? (0.038%, less than Argon)
2. Describe how CO2 increases the planet’s temperature?(restricting radiation and reflection of heat energy away at night)
3, Where did all the carbon in all living things and therefore all the “fossil fuels” come from. (CO2)
I have found none that can answer any.
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the two most important greenhouse gases - that’s why carbonated beverages will be banned.
“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent...." “On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said
Hey Barry. Google 'Port Royal, Jamaica'. You know, that infamous Pirate Haven
It just happened to disappear UNDER THE SEA in 1692 due to an Earthquake.. And I don't think 'we' were throwing too much of that pollutant, CO2, into the air in 1692! (ya asshat)
Or maybe all that cannon fire by Pirates caused the Earthquake? 
Thanks for the ping.
True - but a poor beaten down populace doesn't stand up to corrupt leaders. And the elites - while being a much smaller group - actually have "more" - and more power.
Hunger might bring the “off with their heads” much sooner.
The Goreical is not going to likie that.
Hey, where can I pick some of those Yamal cherries?
BUMP!
GREEN IS THE NEW RED!!!
Gee, Dr. Hansen, is that you jumping the shark?
Air of unease across Rust Belt from climate plan
Battling 'climate change' - an issue of morality?
[Miss] Lindsey Graham folds on cap and tax
Global Warming on Free Republic
Hey, that kinda looks like one-a them there Soviet dachas!
That is a definite fixer-upper . . . with a bulldozer!
Those are three very good simple questions worth remembering. I tend to get involved right away with how dangerous it is to believe the climate “models” and the temperature “data” and go into detail about those. It would probably be much more effective if I started much more simply.
OK, I'm off the soap box.
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.