Debunking the CO2 Scam

GlobalWarmingby Jerry Richardson10/11/14
There are at least two major, irrefutable facts that show that the CO2 scare peddled by Environmental Global Warming alarmists is a scam. Two major irrefutable facts concerning CO2 are:

1. CO2 atmospheric concentrations have continued to increase, in modern times, since at least 1958 when direct CO2 measurements began at the NOAA-operated Mauna Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii; meanwhile there has been no measureable atmospheric Global Warming for the past 18 years, since 1996.

CO2   increase in the atmosphere is not causing global warming.

2. The Current atmospheric level of CO2 which is supposed to be cause for concern is approximately 400ppm (parts per million) which is 400/1000000 = .0004 = .04 Percent of the atmospheric gases; exhaled gases from a healthy human body contain about 4 to 5 Percent of CO2 ; and in parts per million (ppm) this would be 40,000 to 50,000ppm—a huge concentration but demonstrably not unhealthy.

CO2 is absolutely not a “pollutant” as it is defined to be by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). In fact it is an essential part of life, especially for plants.

Keep in mind that the CO2 scare—that CO2 is causing Global Warming and is a dangerous pollutant—was initiated by the politicized IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the totally untrustworthy United Nations).

The Global Warming fanatics keep insisting that an increasing amount of CO2 causes Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming aka Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption.

The prophets of climate doom keep having to change the name because for the past 18 years there has been NO measurable Global Warming, Anthropogenic or otherwise.  The label Climate Change as a substitute for the measurably-incorrect label Global Warming is silly, and attempts to blur the actual issues.   All informed people know that the earth’s climate is changing and has been changing throughout the earth’s existence—but that has not been the issue concerning what was initially labeled Manmade Global Warming: The cause(s), the amount and rapidity, and the timeframe of change was and still are the issues. The label Climate Disruption is at best unproven speculation, because weather events such as tornados and hurricanes have been reported, by numerous sources, to be decreasing in frequency, not increasing.  So the search for an appropriate name for an inappropriate scare which is due to politicized-science (initiated for the express purpose of global wealth redistribution) continues.

1. CO2 atmospheric concentrations have continued to increase, in modern times, since at least 1958 when direct CO2 measurements began at the NOAA-operated Mauna Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii; meanwhile there has been no measureable atmospheric global warming for the past 18 years, since 1996.

CO2 increase in the atmosphere is not causing global warming.

Let’s view a global temperature graph:



Here’s the explanation of the source:

Met Office data show only a tiny change in world temperatures—-…the respected Canadian environmental writer, Lawrence Solomon, recently had the bright idea of publishing in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective, using figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records, compiled by the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre.
Changes in World Temperatures

You are certainly not alone if you have difficulty getting concerned about Global Warming when the measured temperature difference between 1997 and 2012 is only .08 degrees Centigrade.  I certainly get concerned; but it is about the bogus, non-truthful unscientific-predictions constantly pushed by Global Warming fanatics; and pushed by the carbon-tax-scam promoters who are eager to redistribute large chunks of global wealth into their own pockets—the Al Gores of the world.

In contrast, what is some of the climate-related information that we get from genuine climate scientists?

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.  He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.
Roy Spencer

Let’s view Dr. Roy Spenser’s graph showing the variance in global satellite-based temperature:



Global Satellite-Based Temperature

The above chart shows, in large scale, the variances in temperatures, not the temperatures proper with difficult-to-see, tiny variances as CHART 1 shows.  CHART 2 shows that the largest amount of variance that has occurred in GLOBAL temperatures in the years 1979-2014 has been about 1.3 Degrees Centigrade (between -.6 and +.7);  In the period 1979-1996 most of the variance was negative.  For the period 1996-2014 the yearly variance has been mostly positive, but the trend in the variances has been steady (not increasing); hence NO global warming is the correct description of the temperature data.

Continuing the demonstration of the first irrefutable fact confronting the apostles of Global Warming, let’s view a current Keeling Curve:

The Mauna Loa carbon dioxide (CO2) record, also known as the “Keeling Curve,” is the world’s longest unbroken record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.  This record, from the NOAA-operated Mauna Loa Observatory, near the top of Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii, shows that carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily from values around 317 parts per million (ppm) when Charles D. Keeling began measurements in 1958, to nearly 400 ppm today.
The Keeling Curve

The Keeling Curve shows that global atmospheric CO2 levels as measured from Mauna Loa Observatory have continually increased since 1958 (the year Mauna Loa measurements began).  You can also see that the current atmospheric CO2 level is approximately 400ppm (395.25ppm as of October 08, 2014).

Here is the current (as of October 8, 2014) Keeling Curve.


Latest Keeling Curve, USE Full Record

The warming fanatics have NO unrefuted explanation for what they persist in calling a “pause” in Global Warming.”  Their most recent major attempt at an “explanation” has just recently been refuted (see article quoted below).  That now-refuted “explanation” was that the reason for the 18 years of no measurable atmospheric Global Warming is due to the “fact” that the “missing” heat has been absorbed by the earth’s oceans.  This convenient ad hoc “explanation” did not pass the test of an actual measurement conducted by NASA.

[October 6, 2014] NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. [Jerry’s Note: For Climate Change, no; for Manmade Global Warming, it certainly should.]
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the “missing” heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.
NASA Study

CO2 increase in the atmosphere is not causing global warming.

The insurmountable major problem for the prophets of Global Warming has been the simple fact that NONE of their predictions for doom have passed the tests of measurement. Silly me; I thought science had something to do with actual measurements. Perish the thought!  For the Global Warming Environmentalists, the only things that count are politics, conjectures, assertions, and failed computer models—not validation by actual measurement; I guess, to borrow a phrase from Obama, that technique is on “the wrong-side of history.”

2. The Current atmospheric level of CO2 which is supposed to be cause for concern is approximately 400ppm (parts per million) which is 400/1000000 = .0004 = .04 Percent of the atmospheric gases; exhaled gases from a healthy human body contain about 4 to 5 Percent of CO2 ; and in parts per million (ppm) this would be 40,000 to 50,000ppm—a huge concentration but demonstrably not unhealthy.

CO2 is absolutely not a “pollutant” as it is defined to be by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). In fact it is an essential part of life, especially for plants.

This second irrefutable fact concerning CO2 is that the danger-level claimed by the chicken-little (the sky is falling), climate prophets of doom is physiologically much too low to be considered directly dangerous for human beings. If the current atmospheric level of approximately 400ppm for CO2 concentration is considered dangerous by the EPA, what about something huge, 50,000ppm?

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.
50000ppm CO2

CO2 is absolutely not a “pollutant” as it is defined to be by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). In fact it is an essential part of life, especially for plants.

Why has the bogus Global Warming scam lasted so long?

For one primary reason: Global Warming is a Progressive/Environmentalist narrative, and Progressives never stop trying to force a politically-inspired narrative on the rest of humanity.  Simple truth is unacceptable; for Progressives there must always be some crisis-related narrative, else they would have no scare tactic to use for establishing political control.  And never forget, political control is their ultimate goal.

Sure enough, as Chicago thug-major Rahm Emmanuel stated early in his stint with the Obama Administration: “Never let a crisis go to waste.

And of course, if there isn’t a crisis you just manufacture one: Hence Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming aka Global Warming aka Climate Change, aka Climate Disruption, aka next label.  The fact that these charlatans of climate doom continue to change the name of what they are advocating, while maintaining a sky-is-falling-urgency, is sufficient evidence of their fraudulent intent.

Stay tuned to some of the dishonest progressive networks if you wish to be indoctrinated with the next selected label—and there will likely be a next—after it becomes painfully obvious that current terminology is not accomplishing the intended propaganda goals.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (5054 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Debunking the CO2 Scam

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The Branch Albertians do have a method for dealing with the absence of warming since the 1990s: they ignore it, or occasionally even deny it. Those who at least pretend to be scientists at least try to come up with all sorts of post hoc explanations, carefully forgetting to mention that such explanations are useful only when they can be used to make further predictions (which so far hasn’t happened).

    Carbon dioxide, of course, is exhaled by every animal (and I would suggest that the Gorescammers stop exhaling it if they’re so concerned) — and taken in by plants to make more plant material. So far, at least, increasing carbon dioxide means increasing plant growth.

    Note that while the content of exhaled air doesn’t matter much because it’s quickly diluted in air with normal levels, this doesn’t happen so much in enclosed spaces. Diesel-electric submarines tend to have very high levels as a result. (David Brin, a liberal who claims to be a libertarian, in his book Earth set around 2050 had “breathers” who needed oxygen tanks to handle the carbon dioxide level. It made it impossible for me to take him seriously, and I’ve never read anything else by him since then.)

    The greenhouse gas effect was discovered a century or so ago by Swedish chemist (and Nobel laureate) Svante Arrhenius. It happens because carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases block infrared radiation but not visible light, so that night-time cooling is reduced and the world overall warmed. But carbon dioxide and water vapor block the same (not all) wavelengths of infrared, so there is a law of diminishing returns effect (dependent mainly on humidity). This is why the global warming theories work so poorly.


      “The Branch Albertians” – that’s a good one, Tim! Let’s hope they set themselves on fire as the Branch Davidians did, perhaps trying to raise the CO2 level to the point it does some actual harm.

  2. Jerry Richardson says:


    Carbon dioxide, of course, is exhaled by every animal (and I would suggest that the Gorescammers stop exhaling it if they’re so concerned) — and taken in by plants to make more plant material. So far, at least, increasing carbon dioxide means increasing plant growth. —Timothy Lane

    I get the absolute giggles at some of your neologisms—Gorescammers is great. Wish I could create ’em like you do.

  3. Jerry Richardson says:

    Global warming scare is over.

    Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, pointed out that the established criteria of global-warming alarmists shows their models are not reliable.

    “In 2008, the NOAA ‘State of the Climate’ report specified exactly what observations would indicate whether the models are reliable or not: Fifteen years of no warming. In 2009, climate scientist Phil Jones agreed, telling a colleague in one of the leaked Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,’” Harris said.

    “Having just passed 18 years with no warming, the criteria, as set by alarmists themselves, is now satisfied. The global warming scare is over,” Harris said.

    But according to the know-nothing-but-know-it-all Obama Administration “Climate Change” a label masquerading as “Global Warming” is the “greatest threat to the nation and the world.” Unbelievable!

    Alan Caruba of the National Anxiety Center said that after 18 years of observing no increase in average global temperature, it’s bad enough that the IPCC and it’s defenders won’t concede they were wrong, and the media won’t report it.

    “But the worst of this 18-year anniversary of the lack of warming is the fact we have a president, a secretary of state and others in the Obama administration who continue not only to proclaim warming – now called climate change – but suggesting that it is the greatest threat to the nation and the world,” he said. “The absurdity of this should hold them up to ridicule, but these pronouncements are published without criticism.”

    Global Warming Scare Declared Over

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s called “moving the goal posts”. You set a target a few years down the road to sound serious and even scientific, expecting (these people are true believers in their cult) that it won’t happen. And when it does, you simply move them again, without acknowledging the earlier prediction.

      I saw something similar years ago. Every few years, they would admit that the science hadn’t been certain in the past, but now it was. How many times do they have to repeat that statement before one realizes that it’s never been, and never will be, certain? Well, you have to start by remembering the earlier comments. Most people don’t, and they never admit them.

  4. Mark says:

    You cannot argue against AGW on scientific terms with a true believer of the faith. That is because its appeal is of a religious nature not a rational one. The narrative follows a primal religious motif; that is the myth of the Flood. A myth that exists in one form or another in nearly every mythological tradition (religi0n) in human history. It is part of the collective psyche and it goes like this:

    Mankind has sinned, the Divine wrath is incurred through vile weather and rises in sea levels to wipe out humanity. Only the informed ones that repent for their sins will be saved. They may be tasked to build an ark (Judeo/Christian), climb the high tree (aboriginal) or buy a Prius and pay a carbon tax (environmental religion). The holy Scripture (science, high priests, bible or whatever authority they cite) foretells this dire prophecy so disbelievers are labeled heretics or deniers. Same story, new wrapper, always fiction, always religion.

  5. Neobiognosis says:

    “The Current atmospheric level of CO2 which is supposed to be cause for concern is approximately 400 ppm (parts per million) which is 400/1000000 = .0004 = .04 Percent of the atmospheric gases; exhaled gases from a healthy human body contain about 4 to 5 Percent of CO2 ; and in parts per million (ppm) this would be 40,000 to 50,000ppm—a huge concentration but demonstrably not unhealthy.”

    Can I point out that ozone concentration in the ozone layer is even less than CO2 at 15 parts per million. It’s role as a barrier to UV radiation is vital. Any argument against CO2 as a greenhouse gas based purely on it’s atmospheric concentration is meaningless.

    Using numbers in this way is really misleading.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Your point about exhaled air is an important one. In confined areas (such as old submarines), the carbon dioxide concentration could be a couple of orders of magnitude higher than it is today, but somehow the crew survived. And yet David Brin in his novel Earth had “breathers” who needed oxygen tanks because of the carbon dioxide (only slightly higher than it is today). Environmentalism is a political cult (like everything leftist is), and has little to do with actual science. The fact that their reaction to dissent is to eradicate the blasphemers rather than confront their scientific arguments is a good illustration.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      “Global Warming” is a sociological and political movement. The evidence, at best, supports that we’re in a normal warming period heading for another ice age.

      We could argue the particulars — such as the obvious point that potency and amount are different aspects. And we could argue all day. I would answer by stating the obvious that CO2 has only a limited bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum in regards to a greenhouse effect and that we are about as saturated as we can get right now.

      But, again, I’ve rarely found this issue, even among scientists, to be about what real evidence suggests (or how sparse that evidence may be). Instead, we have an interesting phenomenon whereby a science question has been thoroughly politicized. It becomes, particularly on the side of Global Warming chicken-little advocates, a badge of honor, for supposedly only they “care” about the environment.

      And the subtext to this Leftist-based “caring” is that the same ideology that teaches Global Warming, which functions as a religion, also teaches that humans are a plague upon this planet. So with the Left you get this really weird and strange mix of Utopian aspirations combined with the kind of guy who sits on a park bench with a hand-painted sign that says “The end is near…repent.”

    • para says:

      glad you brought that up.. “the ozone hole” was a hoax as well, perpetrated by who other than … al gore.

  6. ChrisPaul says:

    I applaud you all for patting each other on the back.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Typical trollish commentary. Smart-ass and completely devoid of any intelligent remark on the subject at hand.


      We’re the good guys, and we stand together against the bad guys (you and your friends) who are busy eating each other when you can’t strike at us. See, e.g. how quickly you threw gays (your former friends) under the bus after the recent Orlando massacre when supporting them would mean identifying the gay-hatred of Muslim culture.

      Meanwhile, your side, its lies about AGW being exposed daily, has resorted to advocating the punishment of our side for daring to suggest that (1) There is no AGW, and (2) If there were any natural GW, that still wouldn’t justify the wealth-transfer schemes and wholesale shutting down of energy production your side proposes. And when one side of an issue tries to shut the other side up by threatening them with brute force, it obviously has the weaker argument.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The leftist resort to “shut up” as an argument is one reason I’ve gone from mildly skeptical to strongly skeptical. I judge arguments, and seeking to punish dissenters is a very bad argument — and usually indicates a lack of any genuinely good argument.

        Incidentally, with regard to your appreciation of my use of “Branch Albertians”, this reflects the fact that the Branch Davidians are an offshoot of the Seventh-Day Adventists, who spring from the Millerites, a 19th-century millennial sect that made the mistake of giving a specific date for the apocalypse. Later they became vaguer, much as eco-zealots have done since their earlier predictions of disaster failed.

  7. Rich Henkle says:

    I keep looking to see if my reply gets posted. It does not seem very easy to post a reply on your ¨truth seeking¨ site. How odd. I guess my question to you is, ¨Who is paying you? As Senator Alan Simpson said to Anita Hill, ¨I don´t know who is paying you Ms. Hill, but it must be an awfully lot.¨ I would say the same to you. You fish for the oddest conclusions possible and never seem to discuss the many evidences of warming, not only in the atmosphere, but in the oceans as well. Hundreds of sites, over 400 in fact averaged each year for many years, which show a many years warming trend. You can go back to 1900 and find many of these same data collection locations, less than the many hundreds we now have, but all with data consistently contrary to what you chose to post. The best thing to do with those in denial is summarily dismiss you…You are similar to those who wanted to keep believing the world was flat after Columbus proved it was round. The earth is warming, the climate is changing already in many regions of the earth. Again, WHO IS PAYIN´YOU MS. HILL?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      No one is paying me, though I was paid by Salem Press for the articles on the subject I did for their Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues. There has been a remarkable slow-down (at the least) in warming since the mid-1990s (this has been a warm year so far due at least partly to a strong El Niño, just as happened in 1998), and this was NOT predicted by the models relied on by the alarmists. In other words, their prediction was falsified, which makes the theory they relied on scientifically dubious.

      Meanwhile, I suggest you consider such terms as “Medieval warming period” and “Little Ice Age” and how those might affect the warming patterns you cite.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I keep looking to see if my reply gets posted. It does not seem very easy to post a reply on your ¨truth seeking¨ site. How odd.

      Do computers confuse you? Perhaps you initially forgot to click on the “Post Comment” icon.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      You’re truly a nut, Rich. I hope you find Jesus or something, because the streak of anger that has become ritualistic for you isn’t healthy. I’m not kidding. Find Jesus or something and stay away from the toxic Left.

    • Ray says:

      Mr. Hinkle, as one who has never been convinced either way, could you post this factual data so I could read it & know the source? Unfortunately, most of the time when I read these types of posts, they are full of claims with little or no proof. Thanks for your help, Ray

  8. TJ Smith says:

    You won’t be able to deny scientific reasoning forever. I hope for the sake of your families, that your children grow up to be more sensible to the impacts of humans on this planet than you were raised to understand. I get a nice laugh reading your comments though, best of luck chaps, don’t buy property below sea level (or do, I mean someone has to right?).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Global warming is a fraud. Plain and simple. That people such as yourself have been indoctrinated into an emotional “savior” status by forwarding this junk science shows just how far we have fallen.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      You may not be aware of it, but scientific reasoning involves observation of natural phenomena, working up a theory to explain them, and then testing that theory by making predictions for further observations or experimental results. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fails on that last part; it makes predictions, and when the predictions don’t happen (thereby disproving the theory), they continue to assert the theory’s truth.

      It should be obvious that when one side (the alarmists) seeks to foreclose debate (an issue is never totally closed in science, cf. what relativity did to Newtonian mechanics), criminalize skepticism, and hide their data, then that side is behaving like political cultists (e.g., Lysenkoists), not scientists.

      Buying land below sea level is a bad idea even if there isn’t any warming.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A typical Leftist comment.

      1) The writer claims those who do not agree with him are deniers, but does not give any proof of his claim.

      2) The writer pretends that he is concerned for the welfare of our families. This is simply a rhetorical devise often used by the lying Left. They couldn’t care less about those who disagree with them.

      3) Also note the not-so-subtle wedge the writer tries to insert between “deniers” and their children.

      4) The writer shows his condescension toward the “deniers”.

      5) With his comment regarding purchasing water below sea level, the writer demonstrates his condescension as mentioned in point 3 above, is misplaced.

      Thus endeth the lesson in Leftist political propaganda.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I deny that either Atlas is holding the world up or that the Earth rests on the back of a turtle.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Atlas held up the sky from (perhaps) the Atlas Mountains (though I believe L. Sprague de Camp once suggested one of the Canary Island, either Grand Canary or Tenerife, would fit the bill). And it’s not just one turtle — supposedly one guy, asked, said that the turtle was on another turtle, etc. (“It’s turtles all the way down”).

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Here is an article by Dr. Roy Spencer which gives some perspective on this question from the agricultural point of view.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A good article, although a little soft on just dismissing this nonsense as an outgrowth of a secular/Progressive religious sentiment…not science or data. (But then we here are normally on the cutting edge, so someone opinionating in the mainstream must be cut some slack, I suppose.)

      The main impetus behind “global warming” (now termed the even more fraudulent “climate change”) is a psychological need. This proclivity was propagandized into people by the three pillars of Progressive indoctrination: the media, the entertainment complex, and the education establishment.

      Why this need to feel one is a savior of the environment? Why the need to forward the clearly fabricated narrative of humanity being little but a harmful pest on this planet? These two aspects are surely at the psychological core of “climate change.”

      Your guess is as good as mine. One would think a normal person, who cares (in a very conservative way) with preserving our world for the next generation as well as honoring actual scientific data, would be willing to sift through the conflicting views and data in an honest and forthright way.

      But people don’t. The groupthink has become so overpowering that to even question the assumption of “climate change” is to be a bad and uncaring person in some way (and fuels no small amount of self-righteous moralizing). It’s perhaps not quite as true that science has been “politicized” as much as it’s been feminized. It only matters that you seem to “care,” not what the truth is.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Why this need to feel one is a savior of the environment? Why the need to forward the clearly fabricated narrative of humanity being little but a harmful pest on this planet?

        The loss of religion.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I agree. That’s why it is often called “The politics of meaning.” People are gaining, or trying to gain, their metaphysics, meaning, religion, philosophy, and raison d’etre from politics.

          Why this is a bad idea: Politics inherently a corrupt game. It’s a necessary game, but corrupt all the same.

          Unfortunately, those propagandized by the “secular” (there are no more religious busy-bodies than Leftists) Left have come to believer that religion is a bad word. And, unfortunately, many of those practicing religion aren’t much better in regards to separating — not church and state — but worldliness from their metaphysics.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, ultimately, the goal is providing another excuse for totalitarian rule. Hence the term “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside) for most eco-zealots.

      • Rosalys says:

        AGW is a hoax, but “climate change” is very very real. Four days ago (February 9) we had sunny weather that reached into the low 60’s. The following day we got 8″ of snow, with the temperature plummeting nearly to single digits! So I believe in the phenomenon of climate change; it’s just that we used to call it by a different name. We used to call it New England weather.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The equivalent saying in the Ohio valley area is, “If you don’t like the weather, just wait ten minutes.” But of course, what climate change refers to is things like the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warming Period — and thus perfectly natural. It’s an irony that those who smear skeptics as “climate deniers” (no one denies that there is climate) or “climate change deniers” (no one denies that climate changes) are themselves denial of natural climate change.

          Of course, there is global warming when one is in a warming period. And there are many such cycles and sub-cycles. This is one reason why the climate models aren’t yet accurate enough to make valid predictions.

          • Rosalys says:

            Absolutely, Tim.

            The trouble with puny little man is arrogance. It has been calculated that the entire population of Earth could fit within the borders of Jacksonville, Florida. That statistic is about twenty years old, so perhaps we would spread out a little further today. And it would certainly be uncomfortable. So give every man, woman, and child a quarter of an acre, and we’d all fit easily on the continent of Australia. In other words, we are a drop in the bucket. To even conceive that we’d be capable of destroying planet Earth takes as large as much delusional thinking as Algore when he, (like King Canute before him [supposedly] thinking he could back the waves,) in the face of El Nino, declared, “We’re going to beat this thing!”

            And if actions speak louder than words, you have to wonder whether these clowns actually believe this stuff, since they do very little, if anything, to curtail their own luxurious lifestyles. But I’ve stopped wondering. I know they don’t, because (except for perhaps a small number of individuals who are insane, and we must pity them,) they are either virtue signaling, or evil bastards who are using climate to control us.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I’ve used the Canute comparison quite frequently when the alarmists talk about preventing climate change or some such. We are (at least currently) incapable of creating a climatic stasis. Note that the legend is that Canute tried to command the waves as a lesson to his courtiers that he really couldn’t. If so, he was far wiser than today’s climate alarmists (at least those who really believe it), and he lived a millennium ago.

  10. Joe says:

    It is complete idiocy to say that the concentration of CO2 that we exhale would be harmless if we regularly inhaled the same concentration. That’s what this supposed “news” basically suggests in its starting paragraph in point 2.
    For a genuinely scientific study on the subject as opposed to this crap, go see the conclusion paragraph to
    and then be advised that HVAC engineers routinely have safety measures in place that says that no person should be working in an enclosed space having more than 1100 PPM. If you routinely breathed in 40,000 or 50,000 PPM you would die from it, quickly. At 1.28% (12,800 ppm) you will go unconscious in a couple of breaths and die within ten minutes. Just 1000 PPM disorients. Read the study – – it’s real science, not quackery.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have read that carbon dioxides on submarines during World War II got well above 1%, with all those men in enclosed spaces, especially when submerged. Of course, this is more likely estimated than measured, but seems reasonable. In any case, atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t going to go that high — 600 ppm would most likely take at least a century.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        And the lack of carbon dioxide will kill you because carbon dioxide triggers the reflex to breathe. If you are in a tank of 100% nitrogen, for instance, you will suffocate without any pain. And none of this has anything to do with the price of tea in China. The global warming scam remains a scam.

  11. para says:

    “there has been no measureable atmospheric global warming for the past 18 years, since 1996″… i see this phrase a lot, and i keep wondering why people say such a misleading thing, rather than just come straight out and say – there has been 20 years of cooling.

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Your tax dollars at work. The below link will take you to an article on how Trump’s administration will be able to cut the EPA due to the horrible behavior of many employed there. Note the small percentage of employees considered “essential.” If this is true for all government agencies, which I believe very possible, just think of the potential savings available to us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *