Skip to comments.Guess Who's Going to Ignore the Carbon Tax
Posted on 04/13/2021 7:05:35 PM PDT by econjack
I will attempt to answer the very detailed and frightening April 12 Correspondent of the Day letter from Dr. L. Fred Roensch. Perhaps a better title would have been "Despondent of the Day." He cites Bill Gates and the American Petroleum Institute as well-meaning caretakers of our planet by reciting a litany of creative means to save our children and grandchildren from his imagined horrors. My reply will begin with the failed but popular premise that we have gone from global warming to climate change. Why the change? I'll tell you why by citing Ian Rutherford Plimer, Australian geologist and professor emeritus of earth science at the University of Melbourne. Among many other achieved standings, Plimer has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
To Roensch's argument for more carbon taxes, et al., Plimer reminds us that the volcanic eruption in Iceland, which spewed volcanic ash, in just four days negated every single effort made in the past five years to control carbon dioxide emissions on our planet. Incidentally, there are around 200 active volcanoes spewing out this crud every day. Notably, the wildfires in the western U.S and Australia this year alone will negate all the efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. So, drive your Prius, sell your motor boat and SUV, pay carbon taxes for a net negative, and if you really want to look out for the children, quit wasting money with which they will be burdened.
AOC and other Liberals “follow the science” by having unswerving faith that Mother Gaia can only be saved by throwing sacrificial offerings on the altar of Communism.
Science is hard. And racist.
The total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
Human’s contribute 3.2% of that 0.04%, or 0.00128%.
Complete eliminate the human contribution and atmospheric carbon dioxide is still 0.04%,
Carbon dioxide is plant food. There are studies out there that show when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants grow bigger and faster. Liberals need to learn the word “homeostasis”.
If only you could understand politics.
Not attacking you, personally. This is political. Their stupid ideas are political.
The people they are reaching won’t understand the science, either. The message of waste is a good one, though. Most people are cheapskates.
I’ve always wondered about this.
And of course, if you Google “Ian Plimer” most of the search results Google offers scream headlines like “Ian Plimer’s fake science debunked!"
During the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods of the dinosaurs C02 levels were around 5 to 12 times higher than today, and plant life thrived. Jungles covered the earth. Oxygen levels were also around 50% higher as a result. Two billion years ago life on earth almost ended completely because C02 was too low. The oceans froze, and 99% of all life died off. So what is a greater danger: too little C02, or too much?
Oh, I understand the politics and that’s what makes me all the more angry.
Doesn’t quite fit the control narrative.
Maybe toss AOC into a volcano to appease the moronic left.
This author is late coming to the party. Major news outlets have signed a pact to agree to start referring to "climate change" as "climate emergency" in their reporting in hopes of increasing the impact on the public.
New Terminology. Same Old Bullshit.
Nonsensical. As a whole, volcanic CO2 emissions are 1/100 of manmade CO2. Yes, an eruption can certaintly output plenty of CO2, e.g. 42 Mt of CO2 with Pinatubo. That's about half a day of manmade. Sometimes people try to conflate Pinatubo's water vapor (which was much larger) with manmade CO2. Volcanic and fossil fuel water vapor are both completely irrelevant compared to evaporation. And evaporated water is much more important than CO2.
One thing controls the planet's temperature: and that is geography. Antarctica is a big freezer and Greenland is a smaller freezer. Both contribute to the cold bottom water that keeps the oceans around 36 or 37F on average.
One thing controls water vapor and that is average weather. Cold and dry La Nina is cooling the entire planet right now. Before that we had a glut of warm and wet El Nino. Those control temperature in the shorter run (years to decades).
Nope. Human deforestation and fossil fuel is primarily responsible for the rise from 280 ppm to 420 ppm (and rising). There's simple no other explanation. Not volcanoes (have not changed), not ocean warming (only a small portion of the CO2 rise is from ocean warming).
Oh, there are!
E.g. One is that warming rises CO2 level. Warmer Earth releases Co2 from the soil and water.
In this theory it is not that Earth is warming because the Co2, but that CO2 is rising, because Earth is warming.
Chicken or egg.
BTW 400 ppm is still a lot less than Earth average. There are hundred of published research papers which evaluate plant growth as a function of CO2 concentration in Atmosphere. (Very easy scientific experiment) Depending on plant, the optimal concentration is between 1000 and 2000 ppm. All plant grow better in more Co2
This one is even from the alarmist:
One thing controls the planet’s temperature: The Sun.
Yes, and the ice cores show that 10C of warming is about 100 ppm of CO2. We've gone up 140 ppm, and still going up 2-3 ppm every year. That's not from warming.
Depending on plant, the optimal concentration is between 1000 and 2000 ppm. All plant grow better in more Co2
Not only is that true, but plants die below 150, some even die below 200. During the recent full glacial periods we had CO2 starvation.
Yes, so obvious I forgot about it. The sun's output rose during the 20th century compared to previous centuries. That caused some warming. The geography I talked about is just the main terrestrial control on climate.
You clearly don’t understand thermodynamics, open and closed systems, or how the planet absorbs and radiates the suns energy to maintain a nearly constant equilibrium. As lurkin said, the sun controls all. The earth absorbs and radiates. By Gods grace and good fortune, that equilibrium temperature happens to be where we can survive. No amount of change in CO2 or goofy Bill Gates chalk dust balloon scheme changes the amount of solar radiation we absorb or radiate back into space.
In a more educated time, it was understood that CO2 was plant food and not to be used to scare monger. There are real pollutants, CO2 is not one of them. It appears science has been handed to idiots.
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.