Kraut speaks like a former Mondale Staffer.
The last rule of the scientific method is to go back and recheck/reevaluate everything, it is never finished. Science is not consensus of some people.
Some would prefer another ice age.
He is right except for his concession that something must be wrong with CO2. It’s plant food. The tons mankind releases into the atmosphere is still miniscule compared to naturally released sources and the total amount in the atmosphere. CO2 has been far higher in the past and had no adverse effect on plants, animals or the climate. It is ignorance of a high order to consider it a pollutant.
From UCSB ScienceLine:
During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.
The only way to change the weather is to redistribute wealth.
“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
The atmosphere has a mass of about 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons (6 million gigatons (GT)). Of this, 0.039% is carbon dioxide from all sources.
The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2. The oceans contain 37,400 GT of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT.
And humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small.
This becomes very obvious when you look at the land-ocean-atmospheric carbon cycle.
To even suggest that mankind is influencing this is like saying that a bacteria is forcing a flea to force an elephant to go in a particular direction.
‘Settled Science’ is a term used by the lazy the uninformed science challenged or functional idiots..
It is a political designation for propaganda purposes.. or a fund raising gambit..
No, but the plants love it.
And they reward us by spewing tons of oxygen into the atmosphere.
Really? Does this moron actually believe that the facticity or truth of something can be determined by the result of a debate?
Perhaps a debate might conclude that it is perfectly safe to put a loaded gun to one's head and pull the trigger. Only a moron would conclude that this was indeed a "fact". And only an even dumber moron would go out and predicate policy on such a 'fact".
Just how dumb is this moron acting as President, anyway?
I see this ridiculous attitude all the time on LENR threads.
I prefer Krauthammer to most in his field of punditry.
But, he says:
“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Why, because it’s “spewed”?
They struck first with “deniers” and we responded with “climate alarmists”, but I think it’s time to take it to the next level and refer to anyone who parrots the “climate is settled” and/or “97% of all scientists...” baloney as a “climate cultist,” for that’s exactly what they are, members of a cult that has become immune to factual information.
As soon as someone, in any position whatsoever, spews out either of those phrases they should immediately be told, “Oh, you’re one of those climate cultists. Okay then,” and then change the subject as you would when confronted by a member of any cult with their fact-free diatribes.
Anyone spewing those statements does so to shut down rational argument, so let that happen, but not without first labeling them clearly for what they’ve become, members of the cult of global warming.
Then stop breathing, dummy!
Who are the RINOs believing global warming BS?
Sciens is never settled.
Just ask Galileo.
Well, yes, but so what? The earth's climate has been changing since it's beginning. And the alternative to that is climate stasis, which has never occurred in the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence.
This is what bothers me, though. Assuming that human beings have a dramatic affect on climate, if we were to do what the climate change cultists want, that would necessarily involve, well, changing the climate. Apart from doing what they claim is a bad thing, they don't tell us what the ideal climate of the earth is -- what it should be changed to.