In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

[Stoaty]

hmmm do you think that site that you sent me to is an unbiased credible source of info? I couldn't get past the idiotic pop up asking me if I was concerned that the NRA controlled congress. If that is the level of their partisanship nothing they have nothing of value to offer.
The article I offered was written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind. Is their theory right? I don't know but if you were interested in learning and if you actually had an open mind, and actually read the article I linked to, and noticed the authors and their credentials you would be rebutting their assessments instead of telling me it was junk science and you wouldn't be righting it off so quickly.

I find that popup annoying too (even though I agree about the NRA influence on Congress). However, what they have to offer of value is expert analysis of the scientific literature on climate change. The article in the WSJ was written by people who have no credentials in climate science. The site I referred you to is written by Joe Romm, who has a PhD in physics from MIT, and was at the Dept of Energy where he was Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 1997 and where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He does not give his own pet theory about what is happening with the climate, he keeps up with the climate science literature, often talks with climate scientists and writes about what the latest science is showing. His site is the best one for the layman. If you want to get technical (way over my head) you can go to http://www.realclimate.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which is run by top notch climate scientists. If you put aside your preconceptions and read the site you will learn a heck of a lot.

[planet4ever]

I know that many of y'all have high degrees and are wicked smart but I wouldn't ignore the credentials of the guys who wrote this article that debunks a lot of the hysteria

Guess this shows the morph is complete ... the WSJ has officially become The Onion.

what part of the piece do you object to?

Your post doesn't belong in this Tesla thread. Go post it under Environmental Issues and any number of people will be happy to, umm, debunk the article's lies, distortions, and oh-so-convenient omissions.

Ray

[apvbguy]

popup annoying too (even though I agree about the NRA influence on Congress).

that is a discussion for another time, I will offer that the NRA isn't even in the top 20 of contributors

However, what they have to offer of value is expert analysis of the scientific literature on climate change. The article in the WSJ was written by people who have no credentials in climate science.

while their credentials are not acceptable to you the article is not one that should be ignored just as the one you offered should not be either.
That said I agree that there is huge impact of man's presence on earth I just don't buy into the apoplectic hyperbole surrounding the issue. a couple of years ago there was a fire in a forest/swamp that consumed many acres and burned for over a year and released more toxins into the atmosphere than was caused by man across the world in the same time period, and events like that are not uncommon and have occurred since the dawn of time, somehow the earth is still spinning, still hospitable and hasn't caused a calamity.

YMMV

[ttweed]

The article I offered was written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind. Is their theory right? I don't know but if you were interested in learning and if you actually had an open mind, and actually read the article I linked to, and noticed the authors and their credentials you would be rebutting their assessments instead of telling me it was junk science and you wouldn't be righting it off so quickly.

"Written by people who do not seem to have any political axes to grind?" Are you kidding me? Both those authors are deeply involved with right-wing think tanks that are highly motivated to disseminate doubt about settled climate science due to the source of their funding. There is no better definition of a political axe. William Harper may be a physics professor, but he is also chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a politically conservative think tank, which received $715,000 funding from Exxon-Mobil from 1998-2008. Harrison Schmitt is a former astronaut, but he is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute, another politically active conservative think tank that has accepted over $600,000 from Exxon-Mobil between 1998 and 2005. Follow the money.

You should read Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway if you want to understand the full breadth and history of the Denial Machine created by powerful commercial interests to blunt the impact of scientific consensus on their business. Sowing seeds of doubt by buying a few scientists to raise questions about research conclusions has always been their primary tactic.

If you want scientific information, you shouldn't depend on the WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has long expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and Fox television news. Try the National Science Foundation instead, where reporting is based on peer-reviewed scientific research. There is always doubt about scientific research, the whole methodology of science is based on questioning knowledge, but the vast majority of climate scientists worldwide, from a wide range of political systems and views, agree that AGW is real and C02 is part of the problem, along with methane and particulate matter.

TT

[johnqh]

I object to this threat which implies that people by EV because of CO2.

I could care less. It is the $200/month savings on gas money that got me to buy.

Spending less on better product. When did that become a left wing agenda?

[WetEV]

Palm trees grew above the Arctic Circle 100 million years ago.

The Sun was dimmer 100 million years ago as well. The Sun is a main sequence star. As it fuses hydrogen into helium it compacts, slowly increasing the rate that this fuel is used.

~0.7% brighter every 100 Myr

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... inseq.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So why, then, with a cooler Sun, was the climate much warmer?

[downeykp]

I am hoping that everyone is seeing a pattern here. First guns, now co2. Whats next? Hum let me think, I would imagine something along the lines of our Kenyan president.

[apvbguy]

I am hoping that everyone is seeing a pattern here. First guns, now co2. Whats next? Hum let me think, I would imagine something along the lines of our Kenyan president.

is anyone seeing a pattern here, denigrate anyone who doesn't share views, plants head in sand when other views are talked about? and the real truth is that he is not kenyan, he was born on okinawa the product of a prostitute and who knows who, the kenyan theory is a myth

[downeykp]

This guy is funny

[apvbguy]

This guy is funny

I make comments, you may not like or agree with the comments and that is not really any concern of mine, however your childish trolling, your comments that are devoid of anything remotely connected to the discussion, your comments that are trying to provoke, to troll is clownish. If I wanted clowns I'd talk to politicians, not you.