The Guardian: CO2 Apocalypse Now! Volcanoes, earthquakes, awaken subterranean giants

JoNova ^ | February 29th, 2012 | | Joanne

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Some one out there must believe this stuff....anyone?

[Sacajaweau]

Imagine what those Tsunamis have put into the atmosphere...I’m sure it’s enough to change the balance temporarily. I’m inclined to believe that the sea rise is a protection against the settling of gases on the earth itslef...kinda like a biiiiig swab.

[The Great RJ]

This lunacy reminds me of of the story in Volaire's Candide where the Grand Inquisitor of Lisbon maintained that the great earthquake of 1715 was caused by the Inquisition not burning enough heretics.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the other side of this debate:

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future by Senator James Inhofe (Hardcover - Feb 28, 2012)

[mountainlion]

This guy has it backward. Volcanoes cause green house gases not the other way around. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution.

[SaraJohnson]

I have been noticing Obama is blowing up dams around the heartland to re-wild the environment. Latest one in Washington State - a reservoir. I wonder how much that is happening and how it will the supply of drinking water. The water melons often say that the next "crisis" will be drinking water shortages. Wonder if they are in the process of creating that.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And from WUWT:

Cambridge professor Michael Kelly on “deniers” and climate change: “science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm.”

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Marine_Uncle]

I know people who I had worked with for a few years, mostly young ones, who actually believe all the BS that has come down the road regarding AGW, CO2, etc.. They actually think there is a world consensus of all knowing scientist as has been preached to them.

[smokingfrog]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Tacking this on here....from mention of Bishop Hill:

Nordhaus and the sixteen

********************************************

Economist William Nordhaus takes a pop at the sixteen concerned scientists, in the latest skirmish kicked off by their Wall Street Journal editorial.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.¹ I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:

• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

<script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript"/> </span> </div> <div class="journal-entry-tag-post-body-line3"><span class="post-comments">

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

It’s almost like these people are hoping for a disaster so they can blame “rich” people

[Carry_Okie]

The water melons often say that the next "crisis" will be drinking water shortages. Wonder if they are in the process of creating that.

That and making sure there is less competition for the petrochemical energy industry. There is a horde of water treatment companies out there seeking a shortage with which to pitch everything from desalinization to water recycling both of which consume gobs of energy.

Same game, same players.

[BenLurkin]

a bottleneck in our gene pool

That would explain "Lady Gaga".

[ApplegateRanch]

3. The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.” By this they presumably mean that CO2 is not by itself toxic to humans or other organisms within the range of concentrations that we are likely to encounter, and indeed higher CO2 concentrations may be beneficial. However, this is not the meaning of pollution under US law or in standard economics. The US Clean Air Act defined an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In a 2007 decision on this question, the Supreme Court ruled clearly on the question: “Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt ‘physical [and] chemical…substance[s] which [are] emitted into…the ambient air.’ …Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.’”6

In economics, a pollutant is a form of negative externality—that is, a byproduct of economic activity that causes damages to innocent bystanders. The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade.7 Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.

In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.

His (and the underlying) logic reminds me of that old Country standard: The Circle Shall Not Be Broken.

---

I was singing with my sisters
I was singing with my friends
And we all can, sing together
Cause the circle never ends