Climatologist: CO2 Poses No Threat To Human Welfare

Carbon Dioxide. Source: Jacek FH (GNU)

Carbon Dioxide. Source: Jacek FH (GNU)

You can rely on the “journalists” at Fox News to bring you the latest developments from the “no man-made climate change” camp. In this story they feature a scientist who says his research indicates that CO2 poses no threat to human welfare at all, and he says the EPA should revisit its findings:

Carbon dioxide is hazardous to your health, the Environmental Protection Agency says. Oh really?

EPA scientists say manmade carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate — and as such represent a threat to human welfare. Officials went so far as to declare the gas a danger to mankind in early December. But a leading climatologist says his research indicates that CO2 poses no threat to human welfare at all, and he says the EPA should revisit its findings.

“There is an overestimation of the environment’s sensitivity to CO2,” said Dr. Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

Michaels spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man’s role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations’ latest report on climate change.

Michaels described how the U.N. gathers weather information for its computer models, on which the EPA based its ruling. He said data gathering at weather stations in some parts of the world is spotty, and U.N. scientists add new figures to compensate. But in doing so, he said, they also add errors to the final research product.

“There is a systemic bias in the computer models,” said Michaels, whose research suggests that the U.N.’s adjusted computer modeling data, rather than actual observed data, is what connects the rise in temperatures to manmade causes. When one takes away the computerized modeling enhancements, he said, mankind’s contribution to global warming is virtually nil, approximately .03 degrees, rather than .07 degrees, over the last 50 years.

Thus, he said, most of the planet’s warming is not from manmade sources. “This idea that most of the warming is due to greenhouse gases caused by man just isn’t right,” he said…

[continues at Fox News]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

49 Comments on "Climatologist: CO2 Poses No Threat To Human Welfare"

  1. There is a certain legitimacy to claims that anti-CO2/global warming advocates have used some questionable methodologies and drawn some conclusions that aren't completely supportable…

    …but that doesn't make glaciers come back or explain why whole sections of the Arctic are becoming navigable and commercially viable territory for mineral rights wars.

    I love conservative “non profit” think tanks. Who needs profit when you're handsomely funded by corporate donors to act as their mouthpiece?

    • The only long term studies on glaciers show that they retreat or advance according to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, General Circulation Models can neither predict the AMO nor suggest a way in which warming could affect it. You don't hear alarmist glacier studies any more because the AMO is becoming negative again and glacier retreat has mostly stopped if not outright reversed.

      The 2008 Arctic ice minimum was 9% more than 2007 and 2009 was 15% more than 2008. Climatology didn't predict the 2007 minimum yet they hold it up as a sign that “it's worse than we thought” this is perverse doublethink. How can it be that “whole sections of the Arctic are becoming navigable” when ice extent is increasing?

      Quit living in the past.

      • And my aunt in Switzerland needs snow machines to ski the Alps because…
        The Russians need new roads because of melted permafrost because…
        Teams of maritime lawyers prepare cases for nation's rights to mineral extraction because…
        Islanders evacuating because…

        Quit masturbating to Republi-porn. Micro climates are shifting fast…Al Gore may be full of hot air, but that doesn't make certain painful realities any less legit. Every sucker on both sides who buries his head in the sand carries the blame for what's coming next.

        • Microclimates? There's been 0.5C warming in 70 years. The temperature changes that much every hour of every day on every part of the planet.

          Think for yourself. Microclimates; you're full of shit.

          • I'm just curious, did you happen to see the episode of NOVA that was on last night discussing the averse effects of a 0.5C increase in global temp in regards to increases in hurricane strength due to warming oceans? Because if you had, you'd know just how ridiculous your last statement was.

          • Thank you…pinheads like Fergal can't do the math when it comes to a .001 shift in evaporation and work out what it means when salinity drops by a fraction of a percent and billions of gallons of water are involved. Tiny little numbers…great big fucking impact. When his face is buried between Limbaugh's balls for an asskissing session, its hard for him to notice measurable data or make any use of it.

          • I replied to 5×5's comment above, you're welcome. Tell me again about these “microclimates”.

          • The words will be wasted but I'll say them anyway, since you asked. Try a little research time on the new lakes from the Himalayan Plateau…only created in the last 50 years…all melt-off. Any rain forest, desert, mountain range, bay etc etc is a micro clime, a zone with a unique response to the standard patterns of wind, evaporation and precipitation that brush up against everyone everywhere. Each location, based on its geography, responds to that weather in it's own way. San Francisco Bay area is a micro clime that is entirely different than the San Joaquin Delta Valley just half an hour away. One fogs up every morning, the other bakes like a desert.

            End point, if you take all the hot hot places and all the cold cold places and add and subtract enough you get a very small percentage of temp change…and this is where Al Gore is full of crap…'global warming' is a sleazy sales pitch to net his buddies in the green industry a mint worth of cash. What really matters is that when 'particulate pollution' increases ice melt off annually, the ripple effect or even slightly reduced salinity in seawater hits each local climate differently. Some feel nothing, some get hosed badly.

            .03 F…assuming that your quotes arent just industry backed frauds selling complacency to avoid regulation (cuz that NEVER happens) would still be meaningful, because it isn't distributed evenly. So maybe one spot is colder…but another is hotter and steadily drying up. Talk to Atlanta GA about their evaporation/precipitation rates…they're already down to rationing during peak summer months. Lake Mead NV feeding Las Vegas is shrinking fast between use, high temps and reduced rainfall.

            It doesn't take a greenpeace featherhead to do a little homework and pin down that our familiar climates and predictable averages are moving…and pretty damn fast when you attribute the change to less than a century.

            And just for my backyard, farm families here kept records for snowfall dating back to the 1800's…a little hometown research will tell you that Michigan has been experiencing reducing levels of snowfall on a steady scale with only a few peak exceptions. Even so, every time we get six inches of snow, Limbaugh's fanboys start crowing that if there is snow, there can't be any change in climate. This is the logic of people who worship a belief system more than raw data. If it was a study by a lone crackpot, but it agrees with the party line, it must be right! never mind that there is data recording snow that topped 6 and even 8 feet during blizzards, but generally still a foot to two feet deeper than now on average. That isn't a change?

            Grab your outdated science books, look up evap/precip theory…work out for yourself what happens when the pattern shifts by just an inch or two per year. Then you''' catch on to why these 'little changes' mean so much.

          • Darling, it's perfectly delightful that you haven't accused me of masturbating over a political party from a different continent that I know nothing about in your most recent reply. Many thanks and your words will not be wasted.

            I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, temperatures here have risen here more in the last 30 years than anywhere else. But in the 1930's your country was devastated by “dustbowl” conditions, when according to NASA's own figures US temperatures were warmer than today. That couldn't have been caused by carbon dioxide; there wasn't enough in the atmosphere.

            The largest county of my country suffered “once in 300 years” flooding last Winter. But that area is only 0.00001% of the surface of the globe. So you'd expect a once in 300 year event to happen several times a day on Earth at that reckoning.

            I've been at 4,500m altitude in the Andes. It gets down to -15C because the air is so dry, but that's bathing suit weather in North Dakota. I understand microclimates. They change from month to month. Global average temperatures have risen because the minimums have increased. That's a good thing; it means longer growing seasons and less fuel for heating.

            They say the melting glaciers will deprive the poor farmers in the foothills of the Himalays of 5% of their water, but that makes no sense: if the glaciers weren't melting there'd be no meltwater coming out of them. Deforestation in the Amazon region has reduced 50% for the last 2 years running, the UN predicts the population of Brazil to go into decline by 2030 so there'll soon be no need to cut down any more forest there. The biggest area of deforestation right now is in the Asian Pacific region where farmers are earning carbon credits by cutting down virgin rainforest to grow palm oil. That most likely will cause man-made climate change of some sort.

            But even so it's not going to keep getting hotter because *even* the IPCC say only half the warming – which has been only half the warming they predicted – can be attributed to mankind. Most of it's a natural cycle. There were dry years in the States recently, but it's reversed now. Thank God you didn't get back to the dustbowl conditions there. CO2 has a warming effect but warm is better than cold. People die when it's cold like in the Little Ice Age of the 18th and 19th centuries. And high carbon dioxide concentrations make plants grow faster and reduce their water consumption. This isn't my opinion – market gardeners here in Europe pay big money to pump CO2 at 1,000ppm into their greenhouses. There isn't enough fossil fuel right now to get CO2 that high, but there was that much in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth and some of them were 200ton vegetarians so I guess the plants were doing pretty well because when they weren't being eaten they turned into coal and oil.

            I trust your farmer friends more than climatologists because their livelihoods depend on predicting the next year's weather. But they don't trust their state climatologists anymore because of the bad advice they've received recently. Because it's been biased towards a greater warming effect than CO2 can cause by itself. They've set up their own weather monitoring and prediction service co-ops to protect their profits. The elite climatologist get paid to keep repeating the mantra that it's going to get ever warmer. I hope it does because 12,000 years ago where I'm sitting right now was under 1km of ice sheet and climatologists have no idea why that melted nor why the next ice age is overdue.

            I'm sorry if your friends are low on water right now but not one part of the US is suffering extreme drought at the moment for the first time in years. They are unlucky and they have my sympathies but things got nowhere near dustbowl conditions this time and a warming world could only increase precipitation which would prevent a repeat of that horrible privation. Take care.

          • Tuna Ghost | May 30, 2010 at 7:26 pm |

            I like that every time this issue comes up you talk and talk and don't actually tackle any of the issues that people raise in opposition.

          • I have no idea what NOVA is, we've had a 0.7C increase in global temp and global tropical storm energy is near a 30-year low:

            If everyone in the world gets their propaganda from whatever NOVA is then we're screwed. Perhaps NOVA's computer models predict stronger hurricanes but actual, empirically measured, reality doesn't agree.

          • Yeah yeah, spread across a broader backdrop of the entire planet…any think tank can shift the excess into 'managable percentages' withy a little homework.

            And micro climates…if I have to return to junior high level biology for your benefit, you're past helping and haven't just swallowed the Kool Aid, you're selling it as mouthwash. Tell me weather inst unique to certain areas based on their geography…please…just go ahead and announce to the planet and Disinfo in general that you're quoting studies from industry goons that are so bent that only ditto heads and fanboys can quote them and not feel ashamed.

            I don't buy Al Gore's climate gangsters…they're as fraudulent as anyone else in this, but I reserve a special contempt for people who only live to deny what everyone else can work out for themselves using a yardstick and a measuring cup. Rainfall patterns are shifting, evaporation patterns are shifting, seawater coastal intrusion is up, and the Alaskan Iditarod Race had to be moved because since its founding it was the first time there was no snow at the start point. Why don't you and Sarah P. try sucking on that.

      • dumbsaint | May 18, 2010 at 8:25 pm |

        “How can it be that “whole sections of the Arctic are becoming navigable” when ice extent is increasing? “
        It's easy to see how:

        It may come back a bit over a few years, but overall you can see how dramatically it's changed.

        • The Sun only gets to 30° above the horizon at Midsummer up there, most of the light is reflected directly back into space from the surface of the water.

          Ocean heat content has dropped since 2007. No positive feedback from ice loss has been observed.

          The ice loss was due to entirely natural changes in ocean cycles and had little or nothing to do with temperature. The 30 year trend is meaningless now we know that Nature what caused the loss. The Arctic is recovering.

          The oceans are cooling. How could this possibly happen if carbon dioxide is as powerful as they want you to believe?

          • dumbsaint | May 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm |

            The graph you just posted shows that the oceans are definitely not cooling. It is far more useful to look at 30 years (in my graph) and 50 years (in your graph) to see whats happening. Both show that they fluctuate up and down over a handful of years, but from where they start to where they end things have changed to a large degree. You can't point to the last few years as evidence of anything.

            Besides, you asked 'how can you navigate the arctic when it has grown back in the last few years' I answered by showing you that happens by removing half of the arctic.

          • The graph I provided shows OHC calculated from ARGO buoy data since 2001, figure before then are estimated from a variety of sources; mainly buckets being tossed over the side of ship and then having a thermometer stuck in them. Given how oceanic heat has diverged from NASA's warming prediction I think it's safe to say that the older data contains a lot of wishful thinking.

          • dumbsaint | May 18, 2010 at 10:26 pm |

            If by safe you mean dangerously ignorant. They've long since adjusted to old data to account for new findings (just as they did with the first few years of ARGO data which was shown to have a cooling bias). You can see that the oceans have heated up dramatically, cooled down far more dramatically than what we are seeing now and then started to reach new heights. It's insane to think that just because we're seeing a period of negligible cooling (as compared to the cooling we've seen before) that things are okay. You're doing the graph-porn equivalent of quote mining.

          • Maybe you're not keeping up with the ARGO adjustments, they found a warming bias in the recent data a few months ago and had to adjust it down.

            Global Warming is broken in the sense that the globe isn't warming anymore. They got it wrong. The computer models said 0.3C warming per decade, we got half that much for the last 3 decades. At the height of this year's El Nino we *nearly* got as warm as 1998. It's colder now than it was 12 years ago. The El Nino has now ended and 1/3 of the models are predicting a strong La Nina. That would get us back to 1980's temperatures. Even with a neutral ENSO there'll have been no statistically significant warming for 12 years. How long will you believe their dogma before you start asking yourself whether they know what their talking about?

          • dumbsaint | May 18, 2010 at 11:49 pm |

            A strong el nino/nina means nothing. If you have a strong one either way it will effect the weather, sure. The fact that a strong La Nina can occur doesn't mean that our globe is releasing any of the energy it's been storing up. The weather you feel on your face takes place in the atmosphere, it's that atmosphere which is heating and hasn't stopped. There's evidence that climate change can effect the strength of these climate patterns but that's a different matter.

            Our globe consists of atmosphere, land, ocean and so on. These elements are retaining more energy(heat). They're transferring that energy amongst themselves. That transfer of energy can be seen for example in oceans to the ice. That's why it's melting. It wouldn't melt without the application of energy.

            When we're asked to consider that the globe is warming it's not because of a hot summers day. It's because heat emissions from our planet are far too low for the energy it's taking in. That energy hasn't gone anywhere, it's still here, absorbed and transferred between all elements of the globe.


            They're looking at a balance of energy across the globe. Not one aspect.

          • The top couple of meters of the oceans hold more energy than the entire atmosphere as you can clearly see from that useless, cut off in 2005 to hide the decline, graph from skepticalscience. The oceans aren't heating anymore.

            Obviously El Nino/La Nina does matter since heat can't be radiated out into space without first passing through the atmosphere. This past El Nino will cool the oceans further and if a La Nina doesn't follow then ocean heat content will drop like a rock, although surface thermometers won't cool much. Either way CO2 seems to have done all the warming it can: half what the computer models said. Global warming is not happening let alone accelerating.

            Climatologists have no idea what cases El Ninos. Neither do they have any idea what causes the Arctic Oscillation to change. But it does – drastically – on a multidecadal oscillation. Look: (a little out of date)

            When the space age began the AO had been deeply low for decades, that sets up a clockwise wind pattern which keeps older ice circulating in the Arctic basin instead of being flushed out into the Atlantic. It went strongly positive in the late 80's/early 90's which is when the multiyear ice was lost. This Winter had the lowest AO ever recorded. The multidecal oscillation would appear to have shifted back negative so the ice will recover. It's a natural cycle. The ice loss in the 90's/00's was due to wind and induced ocean currents. Here's the most rabidly pro-AGW newspaper in the world desperately trying to make excuses for it:

          • dumbsaint | May 19, 2010 at 2:16 am |

            I don't see why I have to repeatedly agree with you that the oceans are cooling slightly in the past few years. Yes they have. No ones denying it. I've also stated why that it's not a big deal. Go reread the parts of my post where I point out far more dramatic drops in ocean temp in the past 50 years.

            In your cited articles, AO is responsible for only 1/3 of arctic melt. That leaves 2/3rds not caused by AO.

            El nino and friends are merely transferring some of the energy stored around one part of the ocean or another. The earth absorbs shortwave radiation and re radiates it in the form of long-wave radiation. The only thing in the atmosphere that has an effect on this radiation doing it's thing is (wait for it) greenhouse gases. That's how we know we have a big problem. Satellites that monitor this radiation tell us the the levels of outgoing radiation of a kind emitted by greenhouse gases has dropped significantly.

            Look I'm repeating myself here. The drop in ocean temp is nothing compared to the drop between 1965-early 70s or 1980-83. It's comparatively insignificant and not even surprising.

          • Please, dumbsaint. The Arctic warming they blame on CO2 is due to the ice being flushed out into the Atlantic instead of meting in situ and cooling the ocean there. This can be seen by the steeper thermocline in the North Atlantic since the early 1990's. They assume that the effect is the cause.

            I don't doubt the greenhouse effect for a second. But doubling CO2, in isolation, will raise temperatures a little over 1C. Only positive feedbacks could drive them any higher; according to atmospheric physics. The IPCC claim feedbacks will force it to 3C. Now there's studies suggesting it'll be 12C. That's nonsense.

            Water vapour is a (much) more powerful greenhouse gas, and it averages 20,000ppm versus 400ppm for CO2. But H2O forms clouds. Higher temperatures increase evaporation from the oceans causing clouds to form at lower altitudes. Low altitude clouds are a negative feedback because they shield the surface below from sunlight and reflect the infra-red from the air above them back into space.

            None of the general circulation models can envision clouds. They acknowledge this.

            You say “Satellites that monitor this radiation tell us the the levels of outgoing radiation of the kind emitted by greenhouse gases has dropped significantly.” That's just not true. Believe what you like but don't use that as an article of faith. If there was satellite evidence that doubling CO2 concentrations would cause 3C warming I'd be a believer and it would be shoved down our throats every time we opened a newspaper.

            Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has spent his life interpreting satellite data and won awards for it, has a paper in publication that shows data from orbit predicts less than 1C warming by 2100.

          • dumbsaint | May 22, 2010 at 10:56 am |

            ” You say “Satellites that monitor this radiation tell us the the levels of outgoing radiation of the kind emitted by greenhouse gases has dropped significantly.” That's just not true. “

            Yes, it is. I said decreased outgoing long-wave radiation and there is ample satellite evidence, it is undeniably true:


            Further evidenced by readings of downward radiation:

            “…Believe what you like but don't use that as an article of faith. If there was satellite evidence that doubling CO2 concentrations would cause 3C warming I'd be a believer and it would be shoved down our throats every time we opened a newspaper.”

            Well I just gave you satellite evidence that the greenhouse effect has increased. Less longwave radiation going out into space, more headed down to the surface resulting in an accumulative increase of global heat . (as discussed earlier, global heat. One area may be in a cooling trend – it varies regionally – infact here's a free online weighty tome on the subject ) The short version: 0.7c increase in the last 100 years (roughly the time we start pumping CO2). As evidenced by a whole host of methods.

            Speaking of faith though, what makes you put your faith in Spencer against the overwhelming consensus ( besides the fact that he happens to agree with your POV?) The guy wants intelligent design taught in schools, and finds the bible reconcilable with science. Why should I trust this guy over the majority of climatologists? I hope his projections are right – that would be great – but they don't do much to reconcile the data collected from several other satellites (AIRS, AURA and IMG).

            I'll leave it at that.

          • You're obviously having a bit of a laugh. It nice that you have the sense of humour to quote 4 year old studies from the Hadley Centre who this year stopped giving 6 month ahead predictions because they'd been wrong 9 years out of the previous 10. Yet they know what the climate will be like in 100 years time, nice chuckles, thanks.

            If you'd read my post you'd know that I accept that carbon dioxide will increase temperatures by about 1C per doubling. It is difficult to detect such a small (from 283 to 284K) effect from satellite monitoring. Even when such small changes are detected from a single point in the sky there is no way to separate warming from increased absorption nor from cooling. Experts like Dr. Spencer are needed to analyse such things. He is mundane to believe in intelligent design, since the vast majority of scientists are not atheists and if any of the numerous physical constants of the universe were even slightly different from what they are then matter would not exist .

            Since recent studies have shown that oceanic outgassing of CO2 was overestimated to the point of it actually being negative (or ocean heat content rise was just some bullshit wish-fulfillment fantasy), and that soil bacteria will absorb more CO2 as its concentration rises (as opposed to the opposite which was envisioned by BP and ExxonMobil funded climatologists) I'm not sure how exactly humanity could double CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Even if we burned every fossil fuel and tree on the planet. There is no danger of any runaway warming.

            “Think of it this way: 1c = 150km an animal or plant would need to move to maintain it's livable climate. It would bleach coral (entire ecosystems gone). “

            Right, I've thought of it that way. Let the animals move 150km, and let the coral move up or down a metre or two or go extinct, who gives a shit? Corals have been around for less than 30million years. If they can't adapt then they're just joining the 99.99999% of species that have gone extinct. If coral are that sensitive then nature will eliminate them. Seems unlikely, because sea-levels were dozens of meters lower and temperatures were several degrees lower 13,000 years ago. And temperatures were higher than now 10,000 years ago. Perhaps there was a bunch of unelected NGO cocksuckers looking after the coral back then? I've been diving off the coast of Belize and coral is kinda nice looking. But would I deny developing nations the opportunity to advance on the off chance that coral wouldn't adapt? No. Would I deprive the poor of world the opportunity to feed their children so a small cadre of enfranchised rich shit-kids could go reef diving? No.

            Polar bears evolved so recently that they can breed with North American bears and produce fertile offspring. So they're not even a separate species. Not that the Arctic is in any danger of being ice free anytime this millennium. It was certainty constantly ice-free 3million years ago without the aid of CO2. If only one single species of land mammal has adapted to the Arctic in the 3million years it been there, can't we just keep them in fucking cages in zoos as an anomaly? Oh, wait, there is zero chance that the Arctic will be ice-free anytime soon so those albino misfits can go about slaughtering walruses and shit. When the Arctic natives aren't culling the vicious bastards. Which they have to, to avoid getting mauled by the fuckers.

            The world isn't going to burn. Relax. They want to scare you into paying more taxes. Don't believe the oil companies' propaganda.

            /facepalm, can't be arsed reading your 4-year-old “tome”, is it as full of shit as your are, coral boy? To cheer you up though, there's a new study out just this week which has found the magical missing ocean heat which'll be Gospel, until the dwindling number of real scientists working in the field show it up to be bullshit like the previous two overestimates were.

          • dumbsaint | May 22, 2010 at 9:36 pm |

            Seems you've been reduced to a blithering idiot. Congrats

  2. Close your eyes, push the accelerator to the floor, and don't turn the steering wheel an inch.

  3. The banks and Oil companies gain from all this manmade global warming hype, Research the proposed to solutions yourself, Cap and (giveaway) trade, or the creation of new carbon based derivatives markets benefit only banks and oil companies. The proposed cut backs in emissions is completely in favour of the western world slowing growth in developing countries. All we want is their resources, so who cares?

  4. tonyviner | May 19, 2010 at 12:53 am |

    Stop killing our fucking planet, assholes!!! That is truly all the discourse I need on the subject.

    • De.Carabas | May 19, 2010 at 8:36 am |

      K, how? Shall we put forth economic policies designed to usher in a return to feudalism? Shall we literally declare breath to be original sin? By turning scientific pursuit religious zealotry. Shall we Burn the heretics? Its on you man, I'm listening. Give me your plan and if it does not sound like more bullshit intended to create a protected super-elite who live on top of a huge pile of people suffering the deprivation I'll back it. Hell here's one: Issue carbon credits, only issue them directly to individuals as part of a yearly tax return, make corporations purchase these credits from individuals, control the price by creating an agency that purchases credits for the purpose of eliminating them. Now where's yours?

      • tonyviner | May 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

        I am not sure which part of my statement being “all the discourse I need” was difficult to understand? But I'll play your little game. All I ask for is a little sensibility in business practice. It sounds like you think it is okay for these people (Dow, Monsanto, etc.) to do what they do because they produce a great amount of wealth. Carbon credits, like many other things, sound good on paper, until you stop to realize that they would be bastardized and perverted to suit the needs of those already in power and would not do much to put a stop to the rampant pollution that is raping our ecosystems on a daily basis. This is not necessarily about global warming to me, thought I do see it as a problem that needs to be contained, and I do agree with the 350 stance, but to me the problem is pollution as a whole. The fact that corporations are allowed to weigh the value of life against their quarterly profits is criminal, in my opinion. As for solutions, I do not have any, though if I did they would be egalitarian in nature, no top, no bottom, everyone working together for a sustainable, clean, fun-for-everybody world. Speaking of religious zealotry, I have not seen the word “shall” used that much by someone who wasn't a zealot in a long, long time. Like I said to begin with, “Stop killing our fucking planet.” The philosophy doesn't really need to go much deeper until we reach a point of consensus on that one idea.

        • ,…and this is of course why the global warming fraud is so incredibly dangerous. They have well meaning people chasing the global warming chimera rather than fighting real ecological problems that will truly effect their bottom line if they are reigned in.

          It's like a damn episode of Ghost Hunters. Did you see that? Did you hear that. Ooooh, I'm so spooked! Meanwhile Monsanto is pissing in your sack lunch and stealing the hubcaps off the ghostmobile.

          • You're very deluded, marklar, and completely duped by the fossil fuel industry propaganda. Anthropogenic global warming is very real is the biggest threat to our world, our civilization and future generations that mankind has ever faced. The world scientific community is solidly behind that conclusion while all you're got going for you is half-witted pseudo-science you find on denier cult blogs. You deniers are the new 'flat earth society' and just as crazy.

          • Sorry but saying the scientific community is solidly behind it is both incorrect and irrelevant. Reality is not dictated by consensus. Even the IPPC report which started all this stated unequivocally that there was no evidence for anthropogenic global warming, until the non-scientist politicos at the IPPC rewrote it. If not distracted by global warming we might even be able to repaint the short yellow bus and remove the lead your kind has been ingesting while licking the frame around the back window.

          • I Love CO2 | May 20, 2010 at 6:05 am |

            “If not distracted by global warming we might even be able to repaint the short yellow bus and remove the lead your kind has been ingesting while licking the frame around the back window.”


          • Tuna Ghost | May 30, 2010 at 7:31 pm |

            I know! It's funny that he is reduced to insults because he's so ignorant, isn't it?

          • That is one of your denier cult delusions. The world scientific consensus is very real and very relevant to any discussion of this subject. “Reality is not dictated by consensus” but so what? Scientists are not trying to “dictate reality”, they're trying to investigate and understand reality and the scientific evidence all points to the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate change. The IPCC report is available for everyone to see and it did NOT state “unequivocally that there was no evidence for anthropogenic global warming”, that must be one of your denier cult myths. In reality, the report states that the evidence for human causes is almost certain. Save your half-witted propaganda and lies for your fellow denier cultists, no one with any intelligence or education believes that crap.

          • The Climate CON | May 24, 2010 at 2:54 am |

            Climate gate any one? Professor Phil Jones?

  5. chuck yeager | May 19, 2010 at 5:59 am |

    It's the death of science and the end of the 500 year Enlightenment. Back to the dark ages for us all.

    Science is like a beautiful but defenseless girl. She is pure and true. She knows only right. But lately she is being Raped by powerful organizations that are harmed by her very beauty. They cringe in fear at her light. And so they extinguish it. And back to the dark ages we go.

    This must be how it felt when Rome fell.

  6. E.B. Wolf | May 19, 2010 at 6:59 am |

    I increasingly get the impression that the phrases “global warming” and “climate change” were coined because of their deniability. It's virtually impossible to deny that “pollution” exists.

    It reminds me of the bit that George Carlin did on changing the term “shell-shock” to “battle fatigue.”

  7. >You can rely on the “journalists” at Fox News to bring you the latest developments from the “no man-made climate change” camp.

    An ad hominem, an appeal to motive and an appeal to ridicule … all in one sentence.

    • Hey…after all, it's important to let people know up front where you stand on the information you're presenting. Displaying naked sarcasm and total contempt is a great way to make sure no one mistakes his actions as a form of applause 😉

      And really…it stops being sarcasm when it comes to Fox…the editorial hamfistedness and regular blurring of the line between news and 'editorial commentary' is beneath contempt, which is why the term, and the respect it connotes, 'journalism', can no longer be used except with quotations to denote abiding suspicion. I have to applaud the compact form of the sentence, given that it really does hold all three of the items you mention 😉

  8. De.Carabas | May 19, 2010 at 9:36 am |

    K, how? Shall we put forth economic policies designed to usher in a return to feudalism? Shall we literally declare breath to be original sin? By turning scientific pursuit religious zealotry. Shall we Burn the heretics? Its on you man, I'm listening. Give me your plan and if it does not sound like more bullshit intended to create a protected super-elite who live on top of a huge pile of people suffering the deprivation I'll back it. Hell here's one: Issue carbon credits, only issue them directly to individuals as part of a yearly tax return, make corporations purchase these credits from individuals, control the price by creating an agency that purchases credits for the purpose of eliminating them. Now where's yours?

  9. >You can rely on the “journalists” at Fox News to bring you the latest developments from the “no man-made climate change” camp.

    An ad hominem, an appeal to motive and an appeal to ridicule … all in one sentence.

  10. I invite the gentleman in question to go to Venus and take a big breath, THEN tell me about how “CO2 poses no threat to human welfare at all.”

  11. Patrick Michaels, reading between the lines: “Whhhhhyyyy soooo Serrrriousssssssssssss?''

  12. Michaels is a stooge for the fossil fuel industry and is part of their propaganda/disinformation campaign. He has many financial ties to oil and coal corporations. His whole article is pseudo-science at its worst. If you would like some evidence for this, look here –

  13. Thanks for this article which throws some light on the whole co2 issues, which is really interesting.

  14. Unowhoyah | May 28, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    One thing for certain, my plants love C02 , and they give me back oxigen. We have a symbiotic relationship, yes ?

  15. Tuna Ghost | May 31, 2010 at 12:31 am |

    I know! It’s funny that he is reduced to insults because he’s so ignorant, isn’t it?

Comments are closed.