UPDATE (Sunday 6/26 8:30AM): After choosing the quote of the week this week (see above here) I’ve come to the conclusion that former Senator Wirth is mentally incapable of debating the issue in a rational manner, would likely not respond, and thus there is no point in keeping this as a top post. – A
Former Senator Tim Wirth invoked the nuclear option yesterday. Small mushroom clouds are now appearing across the world as people read what he said. This is my response to him. It will remain the top post for the next few days or until Mr. Wirth responds to the offer made below.
I got the email about this bit of climate ugliness just after having dinner Friday night. I couldn’t do anything about it while I was driving home from Sacramento then, and it is a good thing, because it made me quite angry. The hour long drive gave me time to think about it and remember what the world was like before global warming supposedly made the weather worse.
First, let me remind everyone who former Senator Tim Wirth is. For that, we have to go back to June 1988. Dr. James Hansen is getting ready to testify before the Senate on what he thinks is a serious problem, global warming. The sponsor for Dr. Hansen? Senator Tim Wirth.

If we left it there, there would really be nothing to say beyond the fact that he’s the guy who put Hansen in front of the Senate and launched the cause. But Senator Wirth was culpable in foisting stagecraft onto the Senate to make them “feel” the problem in the form of a well crafted lie.
If any of you have ever been in Washington DC during the summertime, you’ll be able to relate to this. Senator Timothy Wirth made sure that room was “steamy”. This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
Watch the Frontline video here. [UPDATE: The Frontline video has gone missing, but here it is on YouTube]
So it goes without saying, that if the case Dr. Hansen was to make before the Senate was so strong, why did Senator Wirth need to make use of cheap stage tricks?
And, why would anybody trust this man’s opinion on climate today, knowing this?
Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race people with the tired old “denier” label, then set his foot on fire, then stuck it in his mouth trying to tell about half of the US population (according to recent polls) that he’s “coming after them” because they don’t share his opinion.
From CNS News, an extraordinary story coming out of a UN press briefing Wirth participated in, here’s the relevant portions:
Former Dem Senator: Climate Change Caused U.S. Floods, Fires; We Need ‘Aggressive Campaign To Go After’ ‘Deniers’
Friday, June 24, 2011
…
Sen. Wirth said: “Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already. Slowly but surely, people are going to connect the dots. They’re gonna’ understand that this is precisely the kind of significant change that has been predicted and that we’re slowly but surely seeing.
“Happily, there are people like those in, the weather forecasters who’ve come together, you know, into a major group to try to discuss and to understand the impacts and how to explain climate change and climate impacts when they’re doing the evening news and talking about the weather, which is where most people in the United States get their information. That’s going to be, I think over a period of time, an extremely important set of steps to take.
“We also have to do a better job of having the scientific community being able to explain what they’re doing and how they’re doing it and why they’re doing it in very clear terms that are understandable to 300 million Americans.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.
Here’s the audio clip, Wirth’s remarks are at about the 3 minute mark.
==================================================================
I can’t print my initial reaction.
First let’s address Mr. Wirth’s claims of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”.
To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.
Wirth probably isn’t familiar with the revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event. I address that issue here: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective.
It seems like we get more of these things because news media and social media and people with cameras and cell phones are everywhere. Take for example the train crash today in the desert east of Reno, NV, which was covered mostly by citizens on the scene. Hardly anything escapes electronic notice anymore.
Second, Wirth’s hero, Dr. James Hansen, claims that we need to return to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth “safe” and avoid what Wirth claims we are seeing. An entire cult following has developed around this number, thanks to Bill McKibben and his 350.org eco-worriers.
That 350 number isn’t based on peer reviewed science. Hansen’s 2008 paper citing the 350 number was NOT peer reviewed, nor even published in a journal at the time. he just foisted it onto his website and a compliant press distributed it without question. No, that 350 number is based on the fact that was the value of CO2 when Jim Hansen and Wirth set this story loose in the Senate with the stagecraft. As Andy at NYT says “Back to 1988 on CO2, Says NASA’s Hansen“
1987 348.99 1988 351.44 1989 352.90 Source: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
So if what Wirth says is true, we probably didn’t have much in the way of ” increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” back around the time of that magic 350 ppm number right?
Let’s have a look:
Drought:
The most severe drought in California’s history was the 1987-1992 drought. It is the drought Californians are most familiar with due to its recency and severity.
…
North America as a whole has experienced numerous droughts. When pioneers first began settling the Great Plains, they were told that “rain follows the plow.” However, it was an unusually rainy period. In the late 1880s drought struck and over half of the settlers lost their land. Many people are familiar with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the lesser drought of the 1950s. What many people don’t recognize, however, is that over the past 400 years droughts equivalent to the 1950s drought have occurred several times per century (Priest et al., 1993; NOAA Paleoclimatological Program, 2000).
Source: College of the Siskiyous
And it wasn’t just California, it seems India was hit hard in 1987, when CO2 was 349 ppm.
India’s Drought Is Worst in Decades
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Special to the New York Times
Published: August 16, 1987
…
”I am 75 years old, and I have never seen anything this bad,” said Naufat Mohammed, a white-bearded farmer, looking at the cracked earth around a well. ”This is God’s will, but God is angry with us.”
…
The drought, which Government officials say is unprecedented in intensity, has already spread through most of the country, hitting hardest in the northern grain belts. There wells, reservoirs and water tanks are running at dangerously low levels or are already dry. Rain 75% Below Normal
No mention of CO2 or global warming in that article, they just blame God. It works just as well.
It seems the drought continued in the USA though summer 1988. Just a few weeks after Jim Hansen and Tim Wirth scared the bejesus out of a bunch of sweaty senators, Time Magazine put up this cover story:

Of course, in the US, drought was worse in 1934 when CO2 was at something around 290 ppm

The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States, 1934
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000
====================================================================
Flooding:
One only has to look at Dartmouth’s 1988 Global Register of Extreme Flood Events to see that 1988 was a busy year in flooding globally while CO2 was at 350 ppm.
Bangladesh got the worst of it that year. Monsoon rains flooded about two-thirds of Bangladesh in 1988, killing nearly 5000 people and destroying farm animals and crops.
www.itnsource.com
But even though much of the USA had drought conditions in 1988 when CO2 was at a “safe” level of 350 ppm, there were still some significant flood events:
U.S. Floods of 1988
By C.A. Perry, B.N. Aldridge, and H.C. Ross of the USGS
Many areas throughout the United States were affected by drought conditions in 1988. There were few significant widespread floods. A few flash floods occurred during the summer months due to localized, intense rains from thunderstorms. Several flash floods occurred during the summer.
On April 1 and 2, southern Kansas received 3 to 7 in. of localized rain, which caused flash floods. New Orleans, Louisiana, received 7 to 9 in. of rain on April 1 and 2 . Severe flooding occurred, and $18 million in damages resulted. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had $3 million in damages as a result of flash flooding on July 5-9.
Tropical Storm Beryl hit Louisiana and Mississippi in early August. The storm brought as much as 15 in. of rain to coastal counties of Mississippi. Significant flooding occurred on the Biloxi River in Mississippi.
Hurricane Gilbert, the first category five hurricane to make landfall since 1969, struck Louisiana and Texas on September 15 through 19. The storm caused coastal floods in Louisiana and produced excessive rains across Texas and Oklahoma.
=====================================================================
Fires:
Well, who could forget the year of fires in 1988, especially at Yellowstone just three months after the Jim and Tim show before the Senate? The Yellowstone fires of 1988 together formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of the U.S.’s Yellowstone National Park.
The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service, and many questioned existing fire management policies.
California and Texas had major wildfires in 1988 too, with Texas having in March the Big Country Fire burning 366,000 acres. In 1988, while CO2 was at that “safe” 350 ppm level there was also the Great Lashio Fire, Lashio, Myanmar, with 134 killed , and 2000 buildings destroyed. I’ll bet Mr. Wirth, you never heard about that one.
===============================================================
So with all these horrible disasters happening in 1988 while Jim and Tim were turning off the AC and opening windows in the Senate hearing room to get all those senators hot and bothered over global warming at 350 ppm of CO2 concentration, the world went on as usual with droughts, fires, and floods, just like it is doing today.
But our former senator Wirth “knows” that the present batch of drought, floods, and fires are caused by that 40 parts per million increase since 1988. Those same events in 1988 must have had another cause because CO2 was at the “safe” 350 ppm level back then.
So Mr. Wirth, I call BS on your statement, and in my opinion, your opinion on the matters of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” is what I would describe as not grounded in historic reality, or henceforth to be known as wirthless.
And yet, you say “…as I’ve suggested before,undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.
Alrighty then. Mr. Wirth, let me give you the perfect venue by which to challenge skeptics, a “target rich environment” if you will. It’s right in your old stomping grounds in Washington DC, so it should be no trouble for you.
Next week, on June 30th and July 1st, hundreds of skeptics, including me, will be in Washington for a conference.

6th International Conference on Climate Change: June 30-July 1
The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Mariott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW. Timothy Ball, Ph.D., Larry Bell, Ph.D., Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. are among the confirmed speakers.
STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:
Federal and state elected officials can attend ICCC6 for free, but I’m sure Heartland will also open that offer to you as a former elected official.
I’m the first session speaker on June 30th, and to give you ample opportunity to tell the worldwide skeptic community what your plan is to “go after” us and “make a battle of it” I yield my 15 minutes to the former Democratic Senator from Colorado.
I’ll sit quietly and respectfully during that 15 minutes sir, and then it will be our turn to tell you what we know.
Mr. Wirth, this offer is genuine.
If your intent is genuine, bring it. I’ll expect to see you there, as you won’t find a better venue or opportunity to make good on your threats. You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it. I predict though you have not the intestinal fortitude. Prove me wrong.
You can contact me at this web link, or contact Heartland directly here. Given their longstanding policy of inviting the opposition, I’m certain they’ll work to make it happen and I’ll gladly assist.
– Anthony Watts

Mr. Watts reasoning seems to be since there was a drought in the 1930’s no droughts can ever be do to a changing climate because no matter how the climate changes, the drought in the 30’s will still have existed. Silly reasoning.
R.Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:53 am
In regards to the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet, again this summarizes it nicely:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
Can’t see any explanation for how CO2 works as a thermostat.
Is this before or after water and carbon dioxide get into a mutually irresistabe clinch in the atmosphere and come down as carbonic acid (rain)?
Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas..
? Without CO2 the Water Cycle would stop? How?
In the Water Cycle, water having a very high capacity to hold heat, evaporation takes the heat away from the surface of the Earth in water vapour and dumps it high in the colder atmosphere when it condenses out to come down as rain. How does lack of Carbon Dioxide stop that atmosphere wash cycle?
“Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge”
Why on earth would you think that someone who wants to silence you would want to debate you?
sceptical says:
June 25, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make.
Agreed, that would be a very silly thing to say. Which is why he didn’t say it. What he did say is that there is nothing extraordinary or unprecedented about the recent weather events, and provided some historical examples to illustrate that point.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.”
You “insist” on this figure because you DO understand that the actual increase in ppm is so small that you must continually use the “40%” to be more dramatic. So you are technically correct, as has been acknowledged on this blog before, but you REFUSE to acknowledge that this 40% amounts to squat!!!!
Definition of Gatesism: referring to a percentage without acknowledging magnitude.
Example: I had a 40% increase in the number of weeds in my front yard. Not one person can say if this is significant because the actual number of weeds is not referred to. If I had only 5 weeds and now I have 7, it is not significant.
Now you know.
>> sceptical says:
June 25, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make. <<
One again a Warmist misstates an argument in order to shoot it down ,because he can't address the actual argument.
sceptical says:
“So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.”
That is one of the most common & disingenuous approaches by the left regardless of the topic of discussion.
I run across that all the time.
Instead of quoting and responding to what is said, (in this case something Anthony actually wrote), they provide a substitute version which is almost always some irrational twist having nothing to do with anything really said.
Here in order for sceptical to be able to debunk Anthony, he had to come up with a twist so asinine that it is something no one has ever said.
And what brilliance to have then judged his own twist as silly.
My psychoanalysis reads this approach as low IQ & chronic immaturity with a severe delusion of being clever and insightful.
It has many forms:
What you are really saying,
So you’re actually saying,
What you meant was,
Your point is really,
etc.
sceptical,
Notice how I quoted and responded to exactly what you wrote?
Try it.
You’re dreaming if you think he will give up his one-way “conversation”.
Tom in Florida says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.”
You “insist” on this figure because you DO understand that the actual increase in ppm is so small that you must continually use the “40%” to be more dramatic. So you are technically correct, as has been acknowledged on this blog before, but you REFUSE to acknowledge that this 40% amounts to squat!!!!
Definition of Gatesism: referring to a percentage without acknowledging magnitude.
Example: I had a 40% increase in the number of weeds in my front yard. Not one person can say if this is significant because the actual number of weeds is not referred to. If I had only 5 weeds and now I have 7, it is not significant.
Now you know.
———-
I certainly got the point that skeptics would like keep talking about the absolute change in ppm of CO2 and the fact that it is “just a trace” gas etc. In order to try and minimize the critical role of this gas in our atmosphere and to minimize what a 40% increase might mean. Comparing weeds in your yard and the level of CO2 is not appropriate and you know it. Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.
I am happy that if CO2 does have the minimal effect theorised, that we will be leaving the planet maybe half a degree warmer, but in a much better position to support itself.
The natural carbon that was buried eons ago is finally being partly restored into the biosphere, thanks to human actions, and will leave the world a much more adundant place in regard to food supplies
CO2 is such a powerful GHG that there are still frozen rock pools in shade in the Arizona desert around midday!
DaveE.
Myrrh,
Did you actually read any of that link? Every one of your questions is answered there, so I’m guessing you did not.
Dan in California says:
June 25, 2011 at 6:50 am
Since most wildfires are set by arsonists, I don’t understand how anyone can claim “increased frequency of wildfires” can be caused by Global Warming. The recent fire in Arizona was caused by a problem with a motorhome on the side of the road. Blaming this on atmospheric CO2 makes no sense, but the AGW enthusiasts keep getting a free ride from the press.
Dan your post gave my warped sense of humour a jolt. I suppose that if we were jumping to nonsensical connections like our CAGW ranting bretheren we could connect those dots and “see” a connection to Global warming- Like,maybe, it could be said that the connection results from CAGW types losing the Climate debate, going bonkers and becoming arsonists, but that would be really stretching things just like Mr Wirth.
Tempting but I’m sure we wont make that mistake!!
No. What is silly reasoning is that this relatively benign weather the world now has and has had since 1940 is dramatically dangerous. Even with the current population density, much of it concentrated in areas prone to weather or seismic catastrophe, weather related deaths are an extraordinarily rare causation of death and injury. When one hypothesizes that changes in weather are caused by extraordinary changes in atmospheric composition, they must first show the composition is extraordinary, and then must demonstrate empirically that the weather is extraordinary, and finally that the extraordinary weather is caused by atmospheric composition. Mr Watts is entirely correct in asserting as a matter of refutation that he observes no extraordinary weather.
The exposure of the crass and self serving political intent of the likes of Wirth is paramount in proving to the worlds population that they have been ‘had’……….
It’s a shame that it takes the likes of ordinary folk to expose these people – charlatans and conmen for exactly what they are…….an elected politician should be someone to ‘guard’ the individuals rights – not take them away!!!
and for what it’s worth (no pun intended) – what do we think of the scum that prey on the ‘fears’ of the common person? —- make up your own mind….but just remember that your granny is likely going to be ripped off by these folk and their policies if they are given more free reign…….
It is a funny progression, isn’t it. At first the warmists say no debate is necessary. Then they say the science is settled. Then, when those two things don’t work, they go totalitarian and target people.
Former Senator Wirth is becoming Pol Pot.
You know what I think? I think Sen. Wirth must have a lot of money invested in ‘green’ technology firms that require govt. subsidies to be profitable. Just my guess.
Having grown up in Norther VA, it’s much hotter in August than June.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.
Ah, now this is much more like it. R. Gates understanding is more advanced than I realised. But he needs to know it’s not just a balanced atmosphere, but an atmosphere in balance with the hydrosphere and biosphere. As such he is also certain to appreciate the IPCC admits a low level of scientific understanding when it comes to the effect of solar variation, particularly in the UV part of the spectrum, on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and the biology of the ocean surface.
So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output in radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
Won’t you R. Gates?
Well, Mr Watts, the witch hunters are back in action with the climate Inquisition about to begin. Obviously you sir have been preaching heresy to the rest of us heretics.
Many eons ago, when the Earth was much younger than to day, a life-form , called plants came into being.
This life-form used the precious life giving gas in the atmosphere to produce its very structure. This gas was abundant.. at first….. but as the virulent plant life consumed this precious gas, only those species that could adapt to the lowering levels of the life-gas were able to survive. Many billions of species of plant life died, and became buried, and the many billions of tonnes of the life gas were lost for all time.
Eventually, like all consumer cycles, a subsistence balance of the life gas/plant cycle was established.
If the life gas dropped much lower, not even the most adapted of the plants could survive, but a small rise in the life -gas allowed plant life to flourish.
Then along came man, and in his industry, he found ways of releasing the long-buried life-gas for his own warmth and prosperity… and a new age of plant prosperity beckoned. and the plants were happy !!
R. Gates here, here, here, and here, presents this as explaining “the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet”:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
(Which is a completely undated article despite being on a site that “publishes monthly” thus should have some dating. Is there something about Climate Science™ that once a pronouncement is made it becomes timeless and unchanging?)
Willis Eschenbach already tore that paper apart months ago in his post titled “Knobs”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/29150/
Among the main points, the Lacis paper (Lacis10) uses GISS Model E which does not match real-world observations. Plus they got the science wrong.
Roger Pielke Sr, noted climate scientist, listed as a “lukewarmer,” also got in his criticisms:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
From him I gather the paper is nothing new. CO2 is an important “first order” climate forcing, if you remove it completely the Earth would cool. However he highlights the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effect, by the numbers presented you can see while going from 360ppm to zero would be a significant change, from 560ppm to 360 would be far much less. CO2 is a really lousy control knob. Further there are other anthropogenic “first order” climate forcings not considered in Lacis10. Pielke Sr. concludes Lacis10 “…is actually an op-ed presented in the guise of a research paper by Science magazine.”
While CO2 was important for initially establishing a habitable climate on Earth, and its complete removal would be detrimental, now that the climate system is up-and-running with many important regulating mechanisms controlling the temperature in operation, primarily the hydrological cycle, further increases will have minimal impact. Crank it to 11, the Earth won’t notice it getting any louder.
===
Note to moderation team:
R. Gates’ link leads to a paywall for Lacis10. Willis’ post’s link to the paper went dead. Google found the paper, but for possible legal reasons, as can be seen by the address, I want to check if it’s okay to post the link. Feel free to snip if it’s not:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lacis101015.pdf
As an insurance pro, I would point out that, the worse a company is at modelling historical losses, the more it needs climate change to be a factor. As it happens, if you factor in demographics and economic growth accurately, there is no long term trend in weather-related damage, as a number of commenters have pointed out. But if you don’t, and over the years my friends at Munich, like RMA and many major insurers, have tended to underplay these effects, then it looks like you found a horrible global warming/climate change/climate disruption signal.
No need for conspiracy theories or wild guesses about motivations, just human nature at work. And if you understand that, you can eat your competitors’ lunch.
I have never believed in AGW. In the future, I will not believe in AGC. I have no desire whatsoever to pay energy taxes to the UN. I would very much like to go off on some hysterical foul-mouthed tyrade but, the late George Carlin already did it.
Filled with profanity, but still true in my eyes.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
“A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.”
The RDA for Vitamin E is 30 IUs for adults. If you take 40% (12 IUs) more NOTHING HAPPENS! Many adults take 100 – 400 IUs daily. The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg. If you take 40% (24 mg) more NOTHING HAPPENS! Many adults take 300 -1000 mg per day.
Qualifying percentages certainly matters.
Actually, the 40% Gatesism is a two-edged sword for him. As Smokey keeps asking of him – given this huge 40% increase in CO2, how come no one can measure any adverse consequences that are irrefutably effects caused by this huge 40% increase ??
Newcomers to this can see the disingenuity of the Gatesism here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Actually, contemplating Beer’s Law just made me thirsty, I’m off to add to the 40% …………..