Stormy climate deception – hurricane #Matthew becomes latest enviro-excuse

Hurricane Matthew has given climate change alarmists yet another excuse to rail against fossil use and demand a “fundamental transformation” of the US and world energy and economic systems. Reality simply does not support their claims or demands.

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forcesthat have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.

And yet, as Hurricane Matthew neared Florida on the very day the Paris climate accord secured enough signatures to bring it into force, politicians, activists and reporters refused to let that crisis go to waste.

Matthew is the kind of “planetary threat” the Paris agreement “is designed to stop,” said one journalist-activist. This hurricane is a “record-shattering storm that is unusual for October,” said another; it underscores how climate change could “turn seasonal weather events into year-round threats.”

What nonsense. What hubris. Suggesting that humans can control planetary temperatures and prevent hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather is absurd. Saying an October hurricane augurs year-long chaos is either grossly ill-informed or deliberately disingenuous.

Matthew was a powerful storm that left destruction and death in its wake, especially in impoverished Haiti. Its slow track up the southeastern US coastline pummeled the region with rain, flooding and more deaths. But it was a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds when it made landfall in South Carolina October 8, and a post-tropical storm as it moved offshore from North Carolina a day later.

Despite the rain and floods, that makes a record eleven years since a major (Category 3-5) hurricane last made landfall in the United States (Wilma in October 2005). The previous record major hurricane hiatus was nine years, 1860-1869, according to NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.

Only a charlatan would suggest that this record lull is due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. But plenty of alarmist charlatans claim that any violent or “unseasonal” storms are due to “too much” CO2.

Since record keeping began in 1851, the US has been hit by 63 Category 3 hurricanes, 21 Cat 4 storms and three Category 5s (1935, 1969 and 1995). Of 51 hurricanes that struck in October, 15 were Category 3-4. Other significant gaps in major hurricane strikes on US coasts occurred in 1882-86, 1910-15 and 1921-26.

The worst periods were 1893-1900 (8 Category 3-5 ‘canes), 1915-21 (8 Cat 3-4), 1926-35 (8 Cat 3-5), 1944-50 (8 Cat 3-4), 1959-69 (7 Cat 3-5), and 2004-05 (7 Category 3-4 hurricanes in just two years).

There is no pattern or trend in this record, and certainly no link to carbon dioxide levels.

Even more obscene than the CO2-climate deception is the response to Matthew’s devastation. More than a week after the Category 4 version of this hurricane struck Haiti’s unprepared shanty towns, hundreds of thousands still had not received food, water, medicine or clothing.

Just as intolerable, United Nations “humanitarian and disaster relief” agencies were issuing “emergency appeals” for $120 million in “life-saving assistance” funds for the desperate Haitians. This after President Obama improperly diverted $500 million from an economic aid program set up to address disease epidemics – like the Zika and cholera cases that are rapidly rising in Haiti – to the UN’s Climate Action Fund. So Obama and the UN blame hurricanes and diseases on manmade climate change, but refuse to spend money they already have on a hurricane disaster, and instead beg for more money. Incredible!

It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.

A new study by the Institute for Competition Economics concludes that Germany’s “green energy transition” will cost €520 billion ($572 billion) by 2025 – just to switch from gas and coal to renewable electricity generation. These costs will keep accumulating long after 2025, and do not cover “decarbonizing” the country’s transportation, heating and agriculture sectors, the study points out.

This €520-billion bill amounts to a €25,000 ($27,500) surcharge for every German family – and 70% of it will come due over the next nine years. That bill is nearly equal to the average German family’s total net worth: €27,000. It is a massive regressive tax that will disproportionately impact low-income families, which already spend a far higher portion of their annual incomes on energy, and rarely have air conditioning.

Germany is slightly smaller than Montana, which is 4% of the USA, and has just 25% of the US population and 22% of the US gross domestic product. (One-fifth of US families have no or negative net worth.)

All of this strongly suggests that a forced transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and biofuel energy would cost the United States tens of trillions of dollars – hundreds of thousands per American family.

The impacts of climate change obsession on developing nations would be far worse, if they bowed to President Obama’s suggestions and agendas. African nations, he has said, should “leapfrog” “dirty” fossil fuels and instead utilize their “bountiful” wind, solar, geothermal and biofuel resources. In practice, that would mean having expensive, intermittent electricity and growing biofuel crops on Africa’s nutrient-depleted, drought-stricken lands, with no fertilizer, mechanized farming equipment or GMO seeds.

That is racist. It reflects an elitist preference that the world’s poor should die, rather than emit carbon dioxide “pollution,” drive cars, build modern homes, or engage in other “unsustainable” practices.

Thankfully, few developing countries are listening to such nonsense. Instead, they are using oil, natural gas and especially coal, in ever-increasing amounts, to lift their people out of abject poverty – because the “climate-saving” Paris non-treaty imposes no restrictions on their use of fossil fuels.

But meanwhile, “keep it in the ground” pressure groups are redoubling their efforts to prevent Americans from using their own bountiful fossil fuels to create jobs and prosperity. Even though a new NOAA study confirms that rice growing and meat production generate far more methane than do oil, natural gas and coal production and use – with US operations contributing a tiny fraction of that – these groups use every legal and illegal tactic to block drilling, fracking and pipelines. (Methane is 0.00017% of the atmosphere.)

The dictatorial USEPA nevertheless stands ready to issue tough new methane rules for oil and gas operations, while Al Gore and assorted regulators advocate forcing farmers to control cow flatulence “to combat climate change.” Meanwhile, even Hillary Clinton has recognized that Russia provides millions of dollars in support for anti-fracking and anti-pipeline agitators in Europe and the United States.

Keeping fossil fuels in the ground really means depriving people of reliable, affordable electricity; prolonging unemployment and poverty; having no feed stocks for plastics and petrochemicals, except what might come from biofuels; and blanketing hundreds of millions of acres of farm, scenic and habitat land with biofuel crops, 400-foot-tall wind turbines, vast solar arrays and new transmission lines.

And as the UN’s top climate officials have proudly affirmed, “preventing climate change” is really about replacing free enterprise capitalism with “a new economic development model” and having an excuse to “distribute the world’s wealth” to crony corporatists and other “more deserving” parties.

When taxpayers, consumers, unemployed workers and poor families finally recognize these inconvenient truths, the world will be a far better place – with true freedom, justice and opportunity for all.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
3¢worth

So why hasn’t Obama utilized one of those “bountiful” energy sources, ie. wind, solar or geothermal, to power the lights, heat and A/C at the White House? You know, lead by example Mr. President!

Texcis

+99

David S

The key argument isn’t whether the climates movements are man made or natural but whether we could do anything about it anyway. When developing nations such as India and China aren’t doing anything for 14 years the efforts of everyone else is an exercise in futility. This economic suicide will play into those countries in terms of future economic dominance.

Terry Gednalske

The only cure for this nonsense is to throw all of the globalist, “progressive”, socialist, statist, collectivists out of any position of power. We have an election coming up in the US, and the only candidate who isn’t bought and paid for by the collectivists is bogged down by irrelevant side issues. Don’t be distracted. Do what is right for the America and the rest of the world and send Hilliary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all of their corrupt cronies packing!

johnmarshall

Unfortunately Trump’s problem is big mouth and small foot. Get Ted Cruz back.

The bigger problem is people who will elect Hillary simply to have the first woman president and who ignore and deny the tangled web of criminality, deceit and greed of the Clintons. The equally corrupt media that is ignoring Hillary’s crimes and emphatically hyping Trump’s “foot in mouth” problems would be doing the same with Ted Cruz. If the candidate doesn’t provide fodder for their biased “reporting”, they’d simply do as they do now — fabricate it.

No can do. Voters decided Trump was their man in the primaries.

John M. Ware

Sorry–I liked Cruz also, but he had his chance, as did the other 15 candidates, and he didn’t come close to Trump’s vote totals, nor did he speak to the issues Trump does. Trump is a flawed candidate–as are all humans–but he has not fallen for the PC nonsense, and he has laid out many strong, credible positions, as well as excellent choices for the Supreme Court. As far as energy and the environment are concerned, he–alone among the candidates–had a realistic view of the situation and is not taken in by the alarmists.

JohnKnight

“Unfortunately Trump’s problem is big mouth and small foot.”
Yeah, if only he’d refrain from saying anything that upset the Party bosses and media establishment, then he could be a force real change . . ; )

tomwys1

Thank you for posting this, Anthony! Paul is a gifted writer with well honed Scientific insight; an unbeatable combination sadly missing in today’s media.
Your wisdom in reprinting this article is VERY much appreciated!!!

Mary Catherine

Your wisdom in reprinting this article is VERY much appreciated!!!
Yes!

EDWARD HURST

Maybe humans dunnit – all them goats chowin up the Sahara greenery thousands of years ago…

ren

Americans be ye reasonable. It will be a really tough winter in the northern hemisphere and the sun does not allow to keep warm.

Richard111

Check the air temperature for the North Polar region. Very warm up there. But the sun is now below the equator and does not shine on the North Pole. Where is the heat coming from? Better question, where is the heat going?

Greg Goodman

Link? What are you calling “very warm”. That seems unlikely.

Greg Goodman

Duh, MINUS 10 deg C and cooling !! “very warm” if you’re an eskimo maybe.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
So the heat is not “coming from ” anywhere and IS going out into space as usual at the poles.

It is about -7 C and normally would be about -17 C (if I read the graph correctly by eye).
And the ice extent has taken a meander to the right, so is a bit lower than most years. Probably not meaningful but it is a bit unusual.

ClimateOtter

‘Better question, where is the heat going?’
Space.

Griff

you might want to check the rate of freezing up there: it has slumped to a level below normal… ice extent is hovering on a record low for this date. Ice isn’t very thick , either….
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/amsr2/index.html
http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent/

Interactive NSIDC interactive chart show no real pattern. Some years are above average, some below, which makes sense if you’re talking about averages. 2012 appears to be the lowest level currently.

CarlF

The area of ice build has slowed, but it might be due to winds and currents compacting the ice chunks toward one shore. The area they measure is anything that is greater than 15% ice, which leaves lots of room for consolidation. This is only speculation on my part of course.

If you click on the Polar portal’s link at the bottom to ice volume, it shows
that much of the ice is 4-6 feet (2-3 meters) thick. Also, the graph of volume
looks closer to the mean than the extent graph. Could be residual heat from
the El nino that just ended? See, how it looks in a month.

Richard111, what are you talking about. The official sources say the temperature is slightly below normal in the arctic right now.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

Woops, wrong image…

How low can these UN-inspired propagandists go? Much to my regret,far too many members of Canada’s very ill-informed political “leadership” are following this yellow brick road 🙁

Robert from oz

We’re all doomed , doomed I tell you ! Pretty soon it will be raining blood and we will have winds of fire that will scorch the earth and birds will fall from the sky .
Or was that Tim Flannerys prediction for next week and the result of too many wind farms , I get confused .

Greg Goodman

No it’s the “streamers” at IvanPah.

You should write a disaster movie, or has that one been done????11 Or may maybe a prequel/ sequel or whatever!!!!??

auto

Robert
“We’re all doomed , doomed I tell you” – best said in a deep Scottish accent. [John Laurie]
It is from ‘Dad’s Army’ – a most excellent series from many years ago . . . .
Yet
‘We’re all doomed , doomed I tell you ‘ seems to be the chorus ringing out, these last thirty years.
And not much has happened.
Local maxima – and minima – for this or that day in Oregon or Oswestry in October or April in the last eighteen years.
W. O. W.
Oh – mods: mine, like [I Think] Robert from oz [his orthography] – is /sarc
Did you guess???
Auto – smiling.

Greg Goodman

“a new economic development model”
What these morons have not woken up to is that “green consumerism” is still consumerism, you can not stifle capitalism by wailing about CO2 every single day. Capitalism will just morph to make new products.

All they achieve is a lot of programmed obsolescence and loads of good, durable products being declared illegal and scrapped before their time, which is the opposite of “durable”. It’s wasteful.

The Obama adminstration just signed on to an accord requiring the obsolescence of air conditioners and refrigerators, all in the interests of “climate change”. Doing something useless is the epitome of waste.
Matthew is only the most recent example of an irrelevant “reason” for climate change measures, and a particularly poor one.+

“Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.”
I think we help the enemy when we give in to their main point from the beginning. Why do they not have to prove that a CO2 doubling really does increase the average temperature of the planet? I have seen no proof of that, and I have seen many credible demonstrations that the opposite is the real truth; and even those who agree that a doubling would raise temperatures often claim the sensitivity is very near zero.
I would prefer to begin by saying that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to increase average temperatures, BUT IF IT DOES, then the warming would be a good thing.
Other than this quibble, that was an excellent essay. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Steve Case

markstoval … 1:54 am
I think we help the enemy when we give in to their main point from the beginning. Why do they not have to prove that a CO2 doubling really does increase the average temperature of the planet? I have seen no proof of that, and I have seen many credible demonstrations that the opposite is the real truth; and even those who agree that a doubling would raise temperatures often claim the sensitivity is very near zero.
I would prefer to begin by saying that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to increase average temperatures, BUT IF IT DOES, then the warming would be a good thing.
Other than this quibble, that was an excellent essay. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Mark said “I would prefer to begin by saying that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to increase average temperatures”
As long as you’ve brought up giving in to the enemy, consider that you are buying into their use of average temperature as the defining metric. Consider the fact that the average temperature for the most part consists of the Maximum and Minimum temperature and if you investigate those Min and Max temperatures you will find that they don’t exhibit similar trends. The trend for summer Maximum temperatures in most of the United States has been down for over 80 years.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/156fl8y.jpg
In fact for 20 of the states, mostly in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, Max temperatures for June – September have trended downward since the 19th century.
As I write this NOAA’s Climate at a Glance web site [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ ] is not functioning but when it’s up you can check out trends for time series other than the average temperatures and see for yourself.

Guy Dombrowski

Instead of using maximum and minimum temperatures would not using the Degree Day average be a much better way to follow the climate ?
Check here to see the last 25 year average in Quebec : http://quebec.weatherstats.ca/charts/hdd-25years.html
It is very easy to see a cyclic wave in the graph

On October 15th, a Wyoming town had a record high and a record low. Records are nice for books like the Guiness Book of Records, but other than that……They are set and broken every day.
Also, trend lines do not predict. There is nothing saying the trend line can’t become or will become a hockey stick— up OR down. The trend is just that: a trend. Trend lines change often. Take any piece of a temperature graph, fold the page at random and see where you think the trend will go. Even over long periods, the trend meanders up and down, depending on beginning and ending points.

Steve Case

Guy Dombrowski & Reality check
Thanks for your replies.
Anyone who grows tomatoes in Wisconsin knows that it hasn’t warmed up. But the local paper goes on about average temperature making last August one of the hottest ever. A quick check of Max temperatures for the month turned up two days over 90°F both below 95. When Johnny Carson said “Yesterday was a scorcher” and Ed McMahon asks, “How hot was it?” Johnny didn’t tell him about degree days or averages. No, it’s how darn hot did it get during the heat of the day?

Jeff Alberts

I think we help Stupidity when we perpetuate the myth of meaningfully averaged temperatures (over disparate areas). There is no global temperature. There isn’t even a regional temperature. It’s a fantasy, plain and simple.

wrecktafire

I’d be careful with this one. While average temperature may be a chimera, the total amount of energy in the biosphere isn’t. Supposedly, the oceans have risen a certain amount due to thermal expansion alone. If that is true, and all other things remaining equal, shouldn’t we expect warmer weather, on average? I know the Greenies make this claim and, hey, they’re not wrong about EVERYTHING! 🙂 It is counterintuitive to think that the oceans will warm but the atmosphere won’t, so I wouldn’t try to sell that to anyone.

Scott

Speaking of C02 helping plant growth, yesterday I noticed wild red raspberries bushes that normally only produce one large crop of berries in the summer are producing a sparce late fall second crop this year. I’ve never seen a second crop, with any wild berry, it’s always been one and done. Is this one of the horrible things predicted to happen with higher C02 levels?

Not really. Sometimes my pea crop will come back up in late fall and make a second batch of peas. I’m sure there’s some kind of pattern or reason for it, but I haven’t figured it out. It’s great to get more wild raspberries, of course!

Griff

“African nations, he has said, should “leapfrog” “dirty” fossil fuels and instead utilize their “bountiful” wind, solar, geothermal and biofuel resources.”
well, that’s exactly what is happening… Kenya is planning to connect all its citizens to electricity by 2020 -and wind, geothermal and solar are providing most of the extra electricity…

Mickey Reno

Wind and solar’s claim to fame – We’re better than nothing.

The US did that in the early 1900s. When REA electrification was offered, the turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc were tossed out and connection to the grid was welcomed. It was considered progress and the rational thing to do. Check with Kenya on a real power plant versus wind and solar. My bet is the turbines and solar get chucked, just like everywhere else people have a choice between unreliable electricity and real electricity.

Griff

Kenya though imports most of its fossil fuel. also it does not actually have a 100% grid, or means to provide it.
why not keep on with renewables which have no (expensive, imported) fuel cost?

The Kenyans know that renewables are unreliable and expensive, and lack the impulse to exhibit their green virtue.

Reasonable Skeptic

Griff, I think the answer is fairly simple. Poor people get far more benefit from access to cheap reliable energy. Have you ever considered going 100% Wind/Solar with no storage at your house? If you think that is the best way forward, do it.

MarkW

I love the way Griff drags in non-sequitors as if nobody is supposed to notice.
The cost of the fuel is one of the smallest aspects of the cost of electricity.

hunter

No they aren’t. Read Kenya news, not major media. Kenyans want real power. Not the power climate imperialists seek to impose on them.

Hurricane Hazel (1954) formed later than Matthew and, unlike Matthew, became stronger as it moved north. Much of the alarmist claptrap about hurricanes requires you to have a short memory which, in fact, most people do. If people knew about or bothered to learn weather history, then the alarmists wouldn’t be able to influence people. The only thing an environmentalist hates worse than people are facts.

Steve Case

The only thing an environmentalist hates worse than people are facts.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Good one.

I agree with Steve—great observation!

wrecktafire

Also rarely discussed: when people run the climate models for the treaty X vs. status quo for CO2, they show that the effects are not prevented, but merely delayed by a few years (e.g. the predicted putative for 2100 AD will be delayed to 2105). I think we need to keep showing that graph to people over and over and over and over, until it is as familiar as that erzatz hockey stick.
How are we going to feel when we have gone to all that effort, and arrived at the same result as if we had done nothing?
Of course, in that scenario, the ultra greens will change the subject to ocean acidification or some such, and claim that the effort was still worth it, but I wonder how everyone else is going to feel. If I thought I was “preventing” Matthew-level hurricanes and sea-level rise, I’d be royally pissed off after having gone to all that work, caused all the damage associated with implementing renewable energy, and suffered all that opportunity cost–those missed opportunities to spend the money more productively, as Bjorn Lomborg points out.
My prediction is that the vast majority of people who believed in the marketing for green energy are going to feel like chumps.

DHR

“But it was a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds when it made landfall in South Carolina October 8, and a post-tropical storm as it moved offshore from North Carolina a day later.”
I recall that Mathew never made landfall in that the center of the eye never passed over land. Is my recollection incorrect?

bw

Videos of the storm show the eye expanding as the storm reached South Carolina, with the west side of the eye wall over Hilton Head. The east side of the eye wall never reached land. The center of the eye seemed to exactly track the shoreline northeast to the outer banks of N. Carolina.
The eye wall passed over many offshore buoys with consistent winds in the 45 knot range. The highest winds were at Diamond Shoals, NC at 52 knots maximum. That means that Mathew was a tropical storm since the threshold for category 1 winds on the Saffir-Simpson wind scale is 64 knots sustained winds.

I have solar panels on my roof (as does Anthony). The provider’s website allows my to track my usage and the PV system’s production on an hourly, daily, monthly or annual basis. My data comes from my own roof, but I do not believe that my usage patterns or production deviates greatly from other households. The problem with solar as an energy source is that there is an off-set between when power is produced by the PV cells and when it is used. This is not a single daily off-set, but rather two primary off-sets: daily and seasonal.
The highest power production occurs during the summer months between 11:00 and 13:00. The highest usage occurs in the winter months between 17:00 and 20:00. The daily off-set occurs every day that we are home. If we leave for a few days, our house idles at about 300 watts every hour of the day, including the night when there is zero power production. Therefore, whether we are present our not, there is an off-set between when the power is produced and when it is used. The seasonal off-set greatly exacerbates the problem. Electricity can not be stored efficiently today. There are schemes for storage systems which would moderate the daily off-set between production and usage. Batteries, pumped water storage systems and other systems would work, but at a significant cost. I have yet to hear a solution to the seasonal off-sets.
The greens blithely ignore the off-set problems.

Griff

The offset will surely be provided in winter by wind…
There are also tidal and grid scale storage solutions.

David Smith

The offset will surely be provided in winter by wind…

And when the wind isn’t blowing….?

“and when the wind isn’t blowing” Blankets. Lots and lots of blankets.

David Smith

Bill,
Superb! 🙂
David

MarkW

Griff has this fantasy of grid level storage, despite the fact that no such storage system has ever been demonstrated as practical.

catweazle666

“There are also tidal and grid scale storage solutions.”
No there aren’t.
Stop making stuff up.

hunter

The climate thugs will soon shut down this sort of informed critical review. They have only their obsession in imposing their counter factual inaccurate narrative of CO2 obsession. Any other story must, in their pathetic world view, be silenced.

Reasonable Skeptic

The greatest threat that climate change has on humanity is not the changing climate, it is the policies in place to fight it.

bw

During Mathew, there are no recorded sustained hurricane force winds anywhere from Florida to North Carolina. Most of the offshore buoys were recording winds in the mid-40 knot range.
For South Carolina, maximum sustained winds were 46 knots at NDBC station 41004 on Oct 8 at about 1300 GMT. When the eye passed over NDBC station 41025 (Diamond Shoals, NC) at 1100 GMT Oct 9th, there were 51 knot sustained winds on the trailing side of the storm. That is well below the 64 knot threshold for category 1 on the Saffir-Simpson wind scale.

MarkW

The east side of the eye is the weak side.

MarkW

arrgh, make that the west side.

rogerknights

WaPo has a story today on the Pacific NW cyclone that fizzled. But you’d scarcely know it was a bust from the story, which is 90% or more focused on damage-incidents, outage-incidents, and photos of rain and surf.

Freedom Monger

I really like Paul’s second paragraph, the one that begins, “No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis”. It is an excellently succinct and comprehensive rebuttal of the entire AGW narrative.
I’m going to memorize it, quote it, and use it as a template to develop my own formal statement on AGW.
Thanks Paul.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.”
Such a simple yet overwhelmingly critical paragraph that eviscerates the supposed “global warming planetary crisis”.
As is this:
“It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.”
Read more of Paul Driessen’s common sense and reasoned argument that is so painfully devoid in the alarmist, schizophrenic world of “Climate Crisis Inc.”