Stunner: EPA's CO2 'hot spot' 'simply does not exist'

wnd.com ^ | 4/29/2017 | Unknown

[rktman]

The theory of human-caused global warming is straightforward. The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere, causing a worldwide increase in temperatures that ultimately will have a catastrophic effect on the planet.

To prevent this catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.

But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?

That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.

The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” the report said.

Brian Sussman, a former meteorologist and the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How The Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” hailed the report as a devastating blow to what he argues is a phony movement.

[rktman]

Ruh Roh! Key phrase---"But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?" IF? Srsly? Despite the SCOTUS saying it is based on that fine panel of scientists, it's natural. No wonder nobody is claiming that they wrote this piece. But, whoever did is steering the anti-denialists towards Brian Sussman so he can take the brunt of the harassment from the ecowankers. Think anyone in the NEA will bother with this report? Nope. Time to further defang the epa.

[Mr. K]

Just picture Charleton Heston shouting:

“CO2 IS PLANT FOOD! ...IT’S PLANT FOOOOOD!!!!”

[Vlad The Inhaler]

CO2 wasn’t ruled a pollutant in an effort to save mankind or the planet.

CO2 was ruled a pollutant to justify a bigger, stronger, more pervasive Nanny state and to justify massive wealth redistribution.

[gr8eman]

Don’t assume people know the definition of the word “pollutant”.

[PIF]

I’m trying to sell my extra large super-duper CO2 scrubbers to the UN - I guarantee that all CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere and all CO2 sources will be permanently sequestered in underground bunkers by whatever means necessary ... all hail Gaia! The Earth will soon be CO2 free!!

[libertylover]

To prevent this (Global Warming) catastrophe, a vast regulatory infrastructure needs to be created, even if it means sacrificing jobs, economic efficiency, personal freedoms or national sovereignty itself.

The left-wing professors want Other Peoples Money for their research projects and the Democrats want to control every aspect of our lives. Such a deal.

[mjp]

The researchers claim they could find no evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations “have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that we analyzed.”

misinterpreted data + dishonesty/lies + simplified dramatic statements + scare tactics/mass hysteria = libtard science

[mrsmel]

Exactly. That’s what almost all of these regulations are about. Only the joiners believe the malarkey, the people at the top-the Gores, the Soros’s-know exactly what they’re doing, and it’s not “saving the planet”. Soros is a megalomaniac, Gore is a greedy thief.

[thirst4truth]

I had to harvest my timber last year due to signs of extreme stress. We figured most of the damage came from four years of drought on the west coast, they were dying.

An alternative theory may be, since the government crack down on CO2, the very food source for my trees, maybe that is what is killing our trees in the NW? A CO2 drought brought on by Obama, the EPA and the Supreme Court!

[rusureitflies?]

Latest Weather Channel headline:
“THE CO2 IN GORE’S GLOBAL FLATULENCE IS NOT HARMFUL!”

[Wonder Warthog]

"Key phrase---"But what if CO2 isn’t a pollutant?" IF? Srsly? Despite the SCOTUS saying it is based on that fine panel of scientists, it's natural."

Any chemical can be a pollutant in the wrong place and/or at the wrong concentration. In the same way that any plant can be a weed for similar reasons. A stalk of corn in a cotton or soybean field is a weed. That said, I think "global warming" is not real.

[Texas Eagle]

The level of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide, or CO2, is rising in the atmosphere,

Okay. I'll bite. What has it risen to? Last time I checked I think CO2 made up something like .03% (that's three/one hundredths of a percent for those of you who are decimal-pointly challenged) of our atmosphere.

[Honorary Serb]

.....That’s precisely the shocking finding of a new report from statistician Jim Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, who contend the Environmental Protection Agency erred when it ruled CO2 is a pollutant in 2009.....

Climatology—real science!

“Climate science”—fake science!!!! You know, all those models!

PHOOEY!!!!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

CO2 is 0.04% of Earths atmosphere.

[rktman]

I knew it. Damn it, now we’re getting close to crossing that imaginary line in the sand. OMG OMG!

[ClearCase_guy]

From Malthus to Paul Ehrlich, the big problem was seen as “we have too many people, we are all going to starve”.

As of 2009, the big problem became “We have too much plant food, our food supply will be abundant”.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: I’m trying to sell my extra large super-duper CO2 scrubbers to the UN ::

So.....
You’re trying to get the UN to subsidize your planting of trees?
Good call, brother! [check my tagline]

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: I had to harvest my timber last year due to signs of extreme stress ::

And don’t you feel BETTER that AlGore is wiping his [@55] with your trees? /snark

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: CO2 is 0.04% of Earths atmosphere ::

Ahhhh, so!

A lesson in “significant numbers” that -apparently- modern science has forgotten.

[ptsal]

Things for the marchers to consider....

---

Sussman similarly dismissed the recent “March for Science,” not as a defense of scientific but as a “fresh public venue for Trump haters to parade their ignorant nonsense.”...

“The March for Science was a confusing event,” he commented. “It risks associating the term ‘science’ with ‘left-wing politics’ which would ultimately not be good for those who claim a scientific mindset. But what I think is more damaging is the idolization of science. It risks becoming religious with people marching through the streets proclaiming that if we just all looked to science we would find utopia, heaven on Earth.