SHARE

Some points to ponder that end the climate “emergency”

Some points to ponder that end the climate “emergency”:

1) CO2 is beneficial. A warmer world with more CO2 is better for man. My interest in getting net emissions to zero is to simply drive home my point that it is not CO2 and it’s a phony climate war. If there were net zero emissions, the earth’s warming would continue to such a time that the oceans cool. And since no one wants to actually look at what is causing that warming, there is no way to “prove” my suspicions. But I am a big fan of the CO2 Coalition.

Their Motto sums it up: “Carbon Dioxide is Essential for Life”.

Look at the Keeling Curve:

CO2 rises in the winter and falls in the summer. Why? The Northern hemisphere gets green and warmer, so less energy is used because it’s harder to heat cold places than it is too cool warm places. And plants use CO2. What does this mean? A warmer world with more CO2 and more plants would even all this out to net zero. It is self-limiting. The CO2 coalition is right. “Carbon Dioxide is Essential for Life”. Never said they were wrong. I am not going to argue with Will Happer or Greg Wrightstone anyway.. The problem is the battle is not based on logic and facts easy to see. They are hidden from the public.

This leads me to my point that causes some ire. Give Oz the dang broomstick of CO2. Plant more trees, build nuclear power plants, and use point-of-generation carbon capture. Far less costly and much more freedom-enhancing than what is going on now. But that’s the last thing the phony climate war pushers want, a real solution that does not involve controlling men under the guise of controlling nature. That is what this about.

My third point: Repeat after me, “climate optimums are not climate emergencies”.

You have to rewrite the record (which I am sure they are trying to do) to say otherwise.

Finally, mankind is far far better off than he used to be. Proving if this is a climate hell we have adapted so well its a lot closer to heaven.

You can’t argue against the improvement in the human condition in the fossil fuel era. So why don’t we start to deal with basic issues like man’s inhumanity to man rather than his inhumanity to nature? Nature rules us, not the other way around. You want to get on someone, get on China since they stick actual pollutants into the air and water like it is their job.

Besides given how fast the oceans have warmed in the past. 30 years, I don’t think it’s the amount of CO2 relative to the total we are putting into the air that is driving that oceanic warming. And without that warming, the earth would not have warmed like it has. But I have talked about that before.

Since we can see warming is a good thing, unless of course, your goal is to create chaos and hysteria. This circles back to HL Mencken who saw nonsense like this coming years ago when he said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

Has it ever been so clear that he was and continues to be right?