The ignorance, intolerance, and violence of the "Climate Crusaders"

Using junk science marches, ignorant professors, resistance and violence to drive public policy

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

As Mark Twain might say, our students are being taught a lot of facts that just ain’t so – by a lot of academics who know all kinds of things for sure that just ain’t so. The recent science and climate marches underscore both this and the dangers of having such ignorance determine economic and energy policy. Topping my current list of wildly misinformed, malpracticing academics is a University of Michigan history professor who claims plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide is more deadly than sarin gas!

Perhaps even more dangerous, this ignorance is compounded by rampant intolerance toward other views, and even violence toward anyone who tries to present contrarian perspectives on climate change, sustainability, personal responsibility and other topics, on college campuses or other public forums. For example, just yesterday, CFACT was denied previously given permission to participate in the “People’s Climate March,” when the CFACT team turned up with large posters that contradicted the “planet is being destroyed” meme. Once again, the “people” is only the far left, and freedom of speech is only for people of the far left.

My article this week explores the nature and scope of this problem – what George Mason University professor Walter Williams calls a “spreading cancer.”

Recent science and climate marches demonstrated how misinformed, indoctrinated, politicized and anti-Trump these activists are – and how indifferent about condemning millions in industrialized nations and billions in developing countries to green energy poverty. Amid it all, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole helped illustrate how the marchers became so ignorant, insensitive and intolerant.

It’s always amazed me how frequently academics, journalists, politicians and students confuse poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) with plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (CO2). But Professor Cole’s April 17 article in The Nation presents unfathomable ignorance from the intellectual class that is “educating” our young people, while displaying and teaching intolerance toward countervailing facts and viewpoints.

Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack “consumed the world’s attention,” Prof. Cole intones, but President Trump is committed to releasing hundreds of thousands of tons a day “of a far more deadly gas – carbon dioxide.” Even CO2 that is washed out of the atmosphere “typically goes straight into the oceans,” he continues, “where it turns them acidic,” threatening a “mass die-off of marine life.”

Cole’s polemical nonsense is too extensive to address in full. But these two claims require rebuttal.

A deadly gas? Carbon dioxide is the Miracle Molecule that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible. Plants absorb CO2 exhaled by humans and animals, and emitted by burning wood, dung, fossil fuels and biofuels – and then release oxygen that people and wildlife need to survive.

Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% a century ago to 0.04% today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren. Claims that CO2 has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have always controlled Earth’s climate, and is now causing “dangerous manmade climate change,” are not supported by actual planetary evidence.

Marine life thrived when CO2 levels were many times higher during past geologic eras. Far from being or becoming acidic, the oceans are mildly alkaline, and their vast volumes of water will not become acidic from human fossil fuel use: that is, to drop from their current pH of 8.1 into the acidic realm below 7.0 on this logarithmic scale. Oceans may become slightly less alkaline with another century or two of human carbon dioxide emissions, but most marine organisms will be unaffected; others will adapt or evolve.

The science marchers forget that President Trump’s actions are in response to eight Obama years of “highly politicized so-called research on climate,” under grants that “anticipated particular scientific outcomes before funding was provided,” Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer told me. Real science “is not based on political agendas, belief systems or computer models. It’s based on evidence – and actual observations have found normal icecap fluctuations, seas rising a foot or less per century, drought cycles little different from the twentieth century, and a decline in major landfalling hurricanes.”

These inconvenient truths contradict the dominant narratives in college classrooms and political circles. Climate alarmists thus demand that they be vilified, banned and silenced, through vile, even violent confrontations if need be – along with other conservative speech on and beyond too many campuses.

It’s as if reality, truth, discussion and debate have become irrelevant where feelings, leftist dogma, climate science or public policies are involved. Even more troubling, it’s as if our culture, education and public forums have been taken over by jack-booted fascists, Mao’s Red Guards, Maduro thugs, and “heroes” like Pavlik Morozov, memorialized by Stalin for betraying his father to the secret police.

Some intolerant protesters may be delicate snowflakes, too easily intimidated, offended or made to feel “unsafe” by conservative or other contrarian thought. However, the near-constant intimidation and threats of expulsion or violence have become a deliberate tactic, used repeatedly to impose speech codes and political agendas – and too often ignored, acquiesced in or supported by professors, administrators and politicians who welcome the silencing of opposition voices or lack the courage to confront it. During Science March weekend in Huntsville, Alabama, shots were fired into the offices where reality-based climatologist John Christy works. “Mainstream media” and academia coverage was minimal.

They demand diversity of race, language, handicaps, sex, sexual orientation, transgender status and sexual self-identification. They cannot tolerate diversity of thought, speech or faculty and student ideology.

George Mason University economics professor Walter Williams calls it “a spreading cancer,” a re-emerging mentality that gave us loyalty oaths, which today come in the form of demands that faculty members sign “diversity statements, especially as part of hiring and promotion procedures…. The last thing diversity hustlers want is diversity of ideas.” The goal is “political conformity among the faculty indoctrinating our impressionable, intellectually immature young people,” Williams says.

As far-left protest marches, window smashing, limousine burning and physical assaults in Berkeley, Portland, Washington, DC and other cities attest, the cancer is metastasizing – particularly when movements and political groups believe their money, power, influence and control are threatened.

On the climate front, at stake are $100 billion a year in reparation funds for poor countries, $7 trillion a year for companies that want to build “sustainable low-carbon” energy systems, and boundless power for politicians and bureaucrats who want to control economic growth, livelihoods and living standards. They cannot tolerate “climate deniers,” even those who merely question the extent of human influences, the degree and impact of temperature and climate changes, whether changes will all be bad, or the supposed inability of wildlife and wealthy, technologically advanced societies to adapt to future changes.

Members of this activist, governing and corporate elite also excel at inflating trivial risks and dismissing easy solutions, to advance their agendas and self-interests. For example, as President Trump revises many Obama era environmental rules, activist groups are using other tactics to continue their war on coal.

Dry ash from coal-fired power plants can be used in wallboard and to partially replace sand in high-strength concrete for bridges, roads and buildings. However, regulations, engineering considerations and other factors limited that option and resulted in most wet and dry ash being sent to impoundments that can leak barely detectable pollutants into surface and ground water. Studies have shown that these levels of chromium and other metals pose little risk to humans, but scare campaigns are creating pressure to force utility companies to spend billions of dollars relocating the ash and closing more power plants.

The best solution is likely to leave the ash in place, shore up the coffer dams, put solid clay seals over the deposits, and let them dry out, locking the metals in place. Radical groups demand relocation and seek to bankrupt the utilities – after which they intend to intensify their attacks on natural gas-fired power plants, drilling, fracking, and the factories, petrochemical plants and other industries that use fossil fuels.

In essence, they have brilliantly established a mantra that can ensure victory in every campaign. Whatever they support is safe, sustainable, climate-friendly environmental justice; whatever they oppose is dangerous, unsustainable, ecologically destructive and unjust. End of discussion.

In the process, they are unwilling or unable to recognize two facts. One, cheap, reliable energy improves living standards, saves lives, and supports new technologies and opportunities, with poor families benefitting most. Policies that make energy less accessible and affordable harm the poorest most of all.

Two, fossil fuels have undeniable environmental impacts, but allow us to produce vast amounts of cheap energy from relatively few acres. Replacing those fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy would require hundreds of millions of acres worldwide that are now cropland or wildlife habitats. Those “eco-friendly” alternatives are actually our least sustainable, most ecologically destructive energy options.

The stakes are too high to let intolerant ideologues continue to control energy policy decisions.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 1, 2017 1:07 am

“Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% a century ago to 0.04% today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren.”
its a trace gas.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 3:45 am

“its a trace gas.”
Which makes it highly unlikely to be bad.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 1, 2017 6:48 am

“It’s always amazed me how frequently academics, journalists, politicians and students confuse poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) with plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (CO2)”
They both have a capital letter “C”, and they both have a capital letter “O”. Therefore they both have to be bad, obviously!
And although I am mocking them, on the other hand I am completely serious. This “confusion” happens because this truly IS the level of thought and scientific expertise which they bring to the table. We are no longer fighting people who have any claim on serious thought – we are fighting hard core left wing ideologues who will say anything, believe anything, do anything in order to achieve power and impose their will (whatever that may be) on others. That is ALL that this fight is about anymore.
[But CO2 must be twice as bad as CO, right? .mod]

Reply to  Matthew W
May 1, 2017 10:50 am

To be fair to trace gases, 320–530 ppm of H2S can lead to pulmonary edema and death. >530 ppmv pretty well shuts down the central nervous system… Which kills most people, with the exception of Al Gore and his ilk. So, back when I worked the Smackover in East Texas, I actually paid attention during safety meetings about drilling sour gas wells… ;}

Reply to  David Middleton
May 1, 2017 3:40 pm

Yes, but that’s not the situation of the atmosphere

Reply to  Matthew W
May 1, 2017 3:47 pm

We’d be in deep kimchi if it was… /Sarc

Darrell Demick (home)
Reply to  Matthew W
May 1, 2017 9:30 pm

Mr. Middleton, you are comparing a biological process to a physical process, and that can lead to unrealistic and misleading comparisons. Living in Canada, I take vitamin D in the winter time, a whopping 0.5 part per billion of my body mass per day (that is correct and is not a typo). And that keeps my vitamin D concentration within acceptable levels. Physical process are different, and yes, at 400 ppm or even at 7,000 ppm (maximum atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past 600 million years), it is a trace gas in the atmosphere that does little to nothing to the supposed “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere.
The truly miraculous process is the biological one known as photosynthesis, since all plant life on the planet is able to extract that one molecule in 2,500 for the process.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 2, 2017 6:53 am

In biological processes, what you consume is converted to something else.
With the case of CO2, when a molecule captures a photon and then a few microseconds transfers the energy absorbed to another molecule in the atmosphere, that molecule of CO2 still exists.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 4:49 am

“It’s a trace gas”.
Upon which plants, the foundation of the entire food chain, are entirely dependent. They are evolved to extract that trace gas and convert it to carbohydrate, which they use to power their life systems. The excess carbohydrate they produce beyond their own needs and the waste, in the form of oxygen from that excess, is what sustains our lives You ought celebrate increases in the availability of carbon dioxide to plants.

Reply to  Don Perry
May 1, 2017 11:02 am

It happens all the time, and has been repeatedly observed. Evolution by natural selection and all the other evolutionary processes is a fact.
You fail to understand the most basic facts about genetics. A new species, genus, family, order or class doesn’t need completely to resort its genome in order to evolve into a new one. A change in a single base will sometimes suffice. So will whole genome duplication, and a number of other such processes.
Speciation can happen in an instant, thanks to a passing cosmic ray, as has been the case with sugar-eating bacteria which became nylon-eaters. It can happen in a single generation, as is common, especially in plant evolution, via polyploidy. Same for hybridization. Or it can happen gradually, as seen for instance in grizzlies evolving into polar bears, which process continues.

Reply to  Don Perry
May 1, 2017 4:50 pm

Chimp, Grizzlies do not ‘evolve’ into Polar Bears. Most species of bears (at least of the Ursus family) can and do interbreed if their habitats overlap but giving birth to a bear that shows characteristics of both Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears has got nothing to do with evidence of evolution.

Reply to  Don Perry
May 1, 2017 4:51 pm

@ Dean ,
Plants are made of equal parts CO2 and H2O .

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Don Perry
May 1, 2017 11:27 pm

Don, thanks. The “intelligent ones” who adore the term “carbon footprint” in its most negative way are spewing false and harmful information. As you rightly say, the real carbon footprint is a small increase in CO2 in the form of greening of the earth. That’s a footprint we all should love.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 5:30 am

That TRUE statement is what makes that “trace gas” so amazing, Steven.
…and so essential to life on this planet.
That WAS your point, right? (We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 6:17 am

Would ye be saying that ye are a denier?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tonyM
May 1, 2017 2:23 pm

According to the headlines in the newspapers, those of us who know the difference between monoxide and dioxide are “science deniers.” What’s wrong with this picture? The alarmists aren’t being held accountable for their ‘false facts!’

Reply to  tonyM
May 2, 2017 7:17 am

Clyde Spencer:
Hi, my Q was addressing Steven Mosher and his comment that CO2 is a trace gas. Not sure if he was being serious or sarcastic. 0

Bryan A
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 1, 2017 12:19 pm

Was that originally
Captain Obvious
Captain Oblivious

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 8:01 am

It may be a trace to you but for some poor dandelion its life or death

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 8:14 am

Stephen has apparently run out of intelligent things to say, but he still has to earn his paycheck.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 8:16 am

This Steven Mosher Drive By was brought to you by Lamborghini, the automobile of choice for the discriminating climate communicator.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mickey Reno
May 1, 2017 12:20 pm

Arent those measured in Gallons per Mile

Reply to  Mickey Reno
May 1, 2017 10:44 pm

I thought that was a Tesla (brought to you by taxpayer dollars – Tesla is a huge ‘welfare queen’).

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 9:16 am

It is a trace gas as regards the whole atmospheric system. It is the critical gas as regards photosynthesizing plants.
Mosh’s snark was a lame effort, even by his usual low “drive-by” standards.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 10:08 am

Dumbest comment you ever made, Steve. Somewhere along your life path you must have heard something about photosynthesis.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 10:53 am

Sending one over to you Steve-
“The Johnson CO2 Generator automatically provides the carbon dioxide to meet maximum growing potentials – and operates for only pennies a day. The Johnson Generator can easily be installed in any greenhouse. No expensive ductwork is necessary and CO2 is diffused evenly without supplemental fans”

Richard of NZ
Reply to  richard
May 1, 2017 3:37 pm

Which proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the only gas deliberately added to the atmosphere of greenhouses.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 12:14 pm

Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 at 1:07 am
“Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% a century ago to 0.04% today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren.”
its a trace gas.

It’s a trace gas that every plant on the planet requires to survive
It’s a trace gas that every plant on the planet could thrive in with ammounts double today’s level
It’s a trace gas that many greehouse growers add to their growing environment to improve growth
It’s a trace gas that most all crops are producing higher yields because it is higher than 350ppm
It’s a trace gas that YOU Dear Mr Mosher exhale at >40000ppm with every breath

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 12:28 pm

What is the level of Hydrogen Monoxide in the atmosphere and is it dangerous?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 1:20 pm

What’s CO2? That’s the bubbles in ginger beer isn’t it? Everyone knows that CARBON is the deadly problem, that dirty, black (black is always bad, right?) stuff you see billowing (sorry, meant to say “spewing”) from cooling towers. Just see Google images for “CO2 pollution”.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 2:27 pm

It’s an essential trace gas.
Without it, no photosynthesis, no oxygen and little food.
More is better, up to about 1300 ppm.

Darrell Demick (home)
Reply to  Steven Mosher
May 1, 2017 9:24 pm

Mr. Mosher, +1. Even at the maximum atmospheric content in the past 600 million years, at 7,000 ppm (0.7%), it was and always will be a trace gas in the atmosphere. Nothing to see here, people.

Reply to  Darrell Demick (home)
May 2, 2017 6:55 am

You seem to be of the opinion that because there isn’t much of it, it is impossible for CO2 to affect anything.
You are completely wrong for the reasons already given.

Proud Skeptic
May 1, 2017 1:19 am

The solution to a warming climate is simple.
Since the deep oceans are such an immense heat sink that would take millennia to warm up even a little, build a few ships with gigantic paint mixers hanging out of the bottom. Let them go to any place that seems to be warming and mix the ocean up a little.
Nothing to it!

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 1, 2017 2:38 am

That’s just crazy. Why would anyone want to reduce any warming that might be happening?

South River Independent
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 1, 2017 11:20 am

Would that not add mechanical energy and actually increase warming overall?

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
May 2, 2017 4:37 am

The CAGW meme on the heat sink in the the oceans is that a little makes a big difference. Thats how they came up with a meter rise in sea level and the 1.5 billion global warming refugees. And it’s true, years ago, when this issue was brought up, it turns out that if the heat were in fact hiding in the ocean, we wouldn’t be talking about SLR in millimeters. And 99% of the skeptics here would be believers. So when I see global temperature decline, I think where is the heat going ?

Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 1:28 am

Q. What’s the opposite of diversity?
A. University.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 1:35 am


Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 7:03 am

Neil Look — What a great line!!!!!!!! — Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 8:50 am

Climatic science reminds me of the song by Dire Straits “Money for nothing and chicks for free”

Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 6:09 pm

Unfortunately, they seem to be becoming synonyms.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Neil Lock
May 1, 2017 11:34 pm

Neil Lock. Consider that great comment as stolen at this instant.

wayne Job
May 1, 2017 1:41 am

Paul you pretty much nailed it. Those in the food chain have to much to lose if the pendulum swings so the useful idiots are engaged in the destruction of real business and cheap power.

Reply to  wayne Job
May 1, 2017 12:25 pm

Oxford University/Said Business School
‘Research collaborations across the University’
Scroll down to:
INET-Oxford – Leading edge multidisciplinary economic research.
LSE/The London School of Economics and Political Science
‘The Institute for New Economic Thinking has created an academic partnership with LSE’, 26 Jan 2011
INET-LSE partnership launched with a $50 million pledge from George Soros.
CIGI-INET partnership at Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Money is provided to places that have the best influence for the money supplied.
Tax-free organizations provide a means for doing this.
Tax-free organizations tax returns are public information in Canada and the U.S.
Another issue to consider in this present situation.

Reply to  wayne Job
May 1, 2017 6:00 pm

INET & CIGI Partnership FAQ’s
“The Partnership was initiated by George Soros and Jim Balsillie, …”
“CIGI has pledged $25 million over the course of five years to CIGI-INET activities.”

May 1, 2017 1:54 am

There are reasons to remain optimistic. Human DNA includes BS detector gene. cAGW proponents are their own worst enemy.

May 1, 2017 1:56 am

CO2 + H2O = ❤

Reply to  SasjaL
May 1, 2017 2:04 am

CO2 +H2O = LIFE !!!!!!!!!

Reply to  AndyG55
May 1, 2017 2:08 am


Bryan A
Reply to  AndyG55
May 1, 2017 12:17 pm

Which is amazingly what you get when you oxidize CH4 (methane)

May 1, 2017 2:12 am

Paul Driessen
Assad was not responsible for the sarin gas release. Stop reading and repeating propaganda. There is no evidence. Your claim is as misguided as the people you criticize in you post.

Reply to  ozonebust
May 1, 2017 2:25 am

No one can condemn anyone for blaming Assad for the sarin gas attacks whilst supporting the CAGW line. The conclusions arrived at in both, use the same methods of investigation.

Reply to  ozonebust
May 1, 2017 5:31 am

Citations, please.

Reply to  ozonebust
May 1, 2017 6:58 am

French Intelligence recently announced that they were in possession of hard, scientific proof, collected from their humint resources embedded in Syria (they have a lot) that the Sarin used in the attack was a perfect chemical match (isotope analysis) to the Sarin previously known to have been produced in Assad’s weapons plants. Turkey has also stated that their humint on the ground has confirmed that Assad’s government did this.
Now you can say “nyah nyah, that doesn’t prove anything” but consider this – you are no longer simply making a claim against PDT, who you obviously loathe. You are claiming that the US Military + Intelligence, the French Military and Intelligence services, the Turkish Military & Intelligence services, and the rest of the EU (who otherwise don’t much care for Trump) are ALL engaged in a vast conspiracy to denigrate that poor nice Mr. Assad.
On the other hand, those who support your claim are Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Mullah’s – and of course, Assad himself. Those are your friends and allies.
Are you sure you don’t want to rethink this? Are you really that comfortable with your position that Vladimir Putin is the True Defender of All that is Good and Holy in the Middle East?

Reply to  wws
May 1, 2017 5:24 pm

WRT to “Assad gassed his own people”.
For perspective, how far off into the fringe would anyone appear to be if they kept saying “Bill Clinton burned his own people … he barricaded them in and burned them alive … women, children and all.”? Well, the fact is that U.S. citizens were burned alive as a result of Bill Clinton’s administrative actions, but people that say (and said) “Clinton purposely burned his own people” are looked as fringe lunatics.
Look at the administrative incompetence here in the United States of America, with the Guns for Drugs, the Waco debacle, the Oliver North arms for hostages, etc., etc.. Do we think the Syrian government, in the middle of an ongoing civil/terrorist/incursive war on multiple fronts, is more competent than our government and Assad is in complete control of all aspects of everything?
WWS, you saw the Waco fire with your own eye; do you still think that it was a “vast conspiracy to denigrate that poor nice” Mr. Clinton?

Reply to  wws
May 1, 2017 10:55 pm

I believe the either US Navy E-2s in the Med just off the coast, or E-3s over the Persian Gulf, also looked at the Syrian bombers that did the raid and found they were over the target city when the attack happened. They saw which base it came from and that is why God-Emperor Trump used his tomahawk to smite the users of WMD.
That said, the jihadis are much, much, much worse than Assad. The problem with Assad’s Syria is that it is a client state of Iran.
The Kurds are the only ‘good guys’ on the ground (excluding Western forces). Everyone else are complete scumbags who are the enemies of Enlightenment Civilization.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  ozonebust
May 1, 2017 8:20 am

Your reading comprehension seems to be failing. The author is quoting an alarmist.
“Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack “consumed the world’s attention,” Prof. Cole intones
Try to keep up.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  ozonebust
May 1, 2017 9:17 am

“I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
Gen. James N. Mattis, USMC, Ret., Sec. Def.

May 1, 2017 2:21 am

The backlash from our youth, with the slowly dawning realisation, as they grow older and wiser, that they were conned and lied to, will be immense.

Reply to  HotScot
May 1, 2017 6:53 am

The one thing the Left seem to have in common right now is never having PAID A BILL in their lives. Whether the cosseted snowflake students still on their mommies’ health insurance, who’ll only ever be “employed” if Daddy buys them an art gallery, or the 5th-generation welfare recipients of Black Lives Matter, these people just don’t get it that someone has to PAY for the lifestyle they feel entitled to. Look at that crowd of “Soros’ Children” at these Marches for Attention and you see an awful lot of people that appear to be living off capital–another word for someone else’s hard work and investment risk. They need one almighty smack upside the head, real soon!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Goldrider
May 1, 2017 7:08 am

“these people just don’t get it that someone has to PAY for the lifestyle they feel entitled to. ”
Oh they get it alright. It’s just that they have been indoctrinated with the idea that it is OK for someone else to pay for it. And the idea that for the government to give to someone it first must take from someone else is valid in their eyes as long as they are the receivers.

Reply to  Goldrider
May 1, 2017 8:20 am

A lot of the ones I have talked to are convinced that the only reason that they are poor is because other people are rich.
They also believe that rich people stole the money from them, therefore there is nothing wrong with using government to get “their” money back.

Patrick MJD
May 1, 2017 2:25 am

Those in that video trying to pull down the sign, pathetic, not even childish, certainly infantile.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 1, 2017 2:31 am

Reminiscent of a time when the greens themselves claimed they were intimidated and bullied when objecting to anything.
You would think they would have more empathy for protesters, but no, they turn into the fascist regime they claim they were demonstrating against in their day.

Reply to  HotScot
May 1, 2017 8:21 am

When you want to know what a leftist is planning, just check out what he’s accusing his enemies of doing.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Patrick MJD
May 1, 2017 11:36 am

Just Galifianakis trying to be funny. Pay him no mind. No idea who the other hairy legged Zach wannabe was. Comparable comedic dance talent though.

May 1, 2017 2:27 am

So this academics with never ending funding and the help of endless masses of sympathizing co workers should be able to solve all the problems of developing 3rd world whatsoever.
But that’s not the case in the real developing world
which is hampered by the lack of financial means that are consumed by fund seeking dogooders.

Owen in GA
Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 1, 2017 4:10 am

Most third world development problems are caused by the kleptomania of the ruling classes in those nations. 90% of aid gets siphoned off to Swiss bank accounts before a dime gets spent on development projects

Reply to  Owen in GA
May 1, 2017 6:32 am

Wait, are you saying that Thugocracies don’t permit independent auditing of the aid monies they are sent?

Reply to  Owen in GA
May 1, 2017 8:23 am

Leftists often use the fact that there are a lot of poor people as a cudgel to beat up capitalism with.
What the ignore is that the vast majority of poor people, and 100% of the desperately poor people live in places where capitalism is all but outlawed.

Reply to  Owen in GA
May 1, 2017 3:44 pm

PiperPaul May 1, 2017 at 6:32 am
Wait, are you saying that Thugocracies don’t permit independent auditing of the aid monies they are sent?
Yasser Arafat not available for comment

Reply to  Owen in GA
May 15, 2017 4:17 am

v’ !

May 1, 2017 2:35 am

A very good article by Paul Driessen. If only the committed Warmistas were able to read and could comprehend it.

Reply to  ntesdorf
May 1, 2017 7:01 am

If wishes were fishes – if they were capable of any kind of comprehension of basic logic we wouldn’t be having this fight.

Reply to  wws
May 1, 2017 2:43 pm

“If wishes were fishes”
My mother used to tell me, “If wishes were horses, the beggars would ride”, whenever I would get to wishing a little too much. 🙂

Reply to  wws
May 1, 2017 5:31 pm

Your mom sounds very nice….
My mom would tell me to wish in one hand …

Reply to  ntesdorf
May 3, 2017 6:27 am

The prime problem is in the skeptic community, many of whom refuse the leftist underpinnings of climate agenda politics from inception over 45 years ago.
The analogy here what is going on with Obamacare repeal. Leftists are leftists but who is really at fault for failure to repeal? RINO is a typical term.
We should invent another term for the AGW pandering skeptic drooling “it’s about science” on a park bench devoid of reality. Sure, there will be plenty of RINO overlap but how about SINO (skeptic in name only) since they are ultimately responsible for the growth and mainstream acceptance and domination of climate fraud pseudoscience. If you think climate policy was driven by actual classical science logic instead of a central planning agenda consider yourself a SINO. The boards here are dominated by them.
It’s low hanging fruit to blame the climate cabal leadership exclusively which is their agenda advances and Trump is unlikely to follow up on his skeptic promise to leave Paris. If the main message you come to table with is sea ice spaghetti chart you are likely a SINO member and you are the problem.

May 1, 2017 2:40 am

fact is – Such groups are informal organized thieves with unrestricted access to global means of transportation –
Which strongly supports and promotes their ‘work’.

Chris Wright
May 1, 2017 2:45 am

One of the signs says “I speak for the trees”.
Really? If trees and plants could speak, they would say they want more CO2, not less.

Reply to  Chris Wright
May 1, 2017 4:56 am

They would probably complain about being chopped down for fuel too.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris Wright
May 1, 2017 5:02 am

The UK Royal Prince Charles is famous for talking to plants. Apparently, plants respond. Maybe the ~40,000 ppm CO2 with expelled air?
But does he speak for the trees being cut down in the USA and shipped to DRAX in the UK?

Sandy In Limousin
May 1, 2017 2:46 am

If nature wasn’t so good at evolving rapidly we wouldn’t have the problems with superbug infections, recurring flu epidemics, rodents immune to poison and rabbit populations that can survive myxomatosis that we spend fortunes trying to combat.
A small change in pH should present no problems, nature will find a way.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
May 1, 2017 6:57 am

This has nothing to do with actual ecology; it’s a “moral panic,” a chimeric “cause” espoused by people who think they’re so smart they don’t need religion, can manufacture “truth,” and believe nature unchanging. They are seeking meaning in their lives, and finding none, hit an existential wall so they have to invent something to stand for. A 1 percent difference in the atmospheric concentration of a trace gas generating this kind of hysteria has truly made ignorance a backlit target on the ridgeline.

Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
May 1, 2017 8:24 am

Especially since increasing CO2 is just taking the natural world back to the conditions that existed a few million years ago.
For many plants and animals, it’s not discovering something new, it’s redeploying strategies that haven’t been used recently.

May 1, 2017 2:48 am

See the still unsolved case Rajendra Pachauri –
and the little change such ‘incidents’ bring.

Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 1, 2017 3:11 am

One step at the time. Ban Ki-moon is gone. Christiana Figueres is stepping down in July.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
May 1, 2017 3:52 am

Christiana Figueres……..has already stepped down and is looking for more “climate” money:–Peak-emissions-by-2020–crazy-but-achievable-/
“The Mission 2020 initiative focuses on six key decarbonisation goals to “bend the curve” on global emissions and meet the scientific goals of the Paris Agreement. Speaking at the campaign launch in London on Monday (10 April), the ex-Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) claimed that current trends, matched by new investments, policies and a broadening of the conversation, could turn the ambition into reality.
The success of Mission 2020 hinges on key milestones, such as the ability of renewables to outperform fossil fuels by 2020. The fact that emissions have flatlined during a prolonged period of economic growth leads Figueres to believe that this target is in reach.
The final goal of the Mission 2020 campaign calls on investors to mobilise $1trn annually for green projects. Figueres revealed that this figure currently sat at around $300bn, although it would be strengthened by the green bonds market, set to reach $200bn in value this year.”

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
May 15, 2017 4:19 am

That’s a relief – Thanks !

Reply to  kreizkruzifix
May 1, 2017 3:45 am

jaakko v’ !

May 1, 2017 2:59 am

If you sum up the damage to wold economy under Pacchauri’s IPCC regime – more than 100 times to finance ‘dieselgates’.

Ian W
May 1, 2017 3:16 am

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King Jr.

May 1, 2017 3:29 am

The video above captures the marginalisation and collapse of the misanthropic self-destruction belief system. Here is another version of the same process. And as always, to be viewed genre neutrally of course.

May 1, 2017 3:38 am

They demand diversity of race, language, handicaps, sex, sexual orientation, transgender status and sexual self-identification.

What the academics, and their left wing minions, and the Democrat party, really don’t care about is the misery experienced by a large segment of the population. This segment of the population used to be middle class, or they had a decent shot at it. They have had the American Dream ripped out from under them. Their jobs were sent to Asia. They are the only group whose health is getting worse. They have been cheated and are dispirited. The left wing weenies think we don’t have to worry about the dispossessed because they are white and white people are always the privileged oppressors.
The weenies have only themselves to blame for President Trump’s victory. If they think he’s the worst thing that ever happened to them … well they brought it on themselves.

Reply to  commieBob
May 1, 2017 8:26 am

The jobs do not belong to the workers. Workers are hired by companies because companies have work that needs doing.
If the US government makes it impossible to stay in the US and continue to make a profit, the companies, and the jobs they provide are going to leave.

South River Independent
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 12:57 pm

And that is why everyone should own income-producing property so you are not reduced to becoming a wage-slave in the global economy. Other solutions are necessary, too. I have relatives who are members of an employee-owned enterprise so they share in annual profits in addition to salary.
We need to pay attention to the second part of Capitalism’s “creative destruction,” because many of our fellow citizens will not be able, for various reasons, to recover from the destruction.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 1:59 pm

wage slave?????
Not that nonsense again?
How exactly do we make it so everyone can own enough rental property so they don’t have to work for “the man” anymore?

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 2:17 pm

The country should be run for the benefit of the people. If that doesn’t happen, it makes sense for the people to rise up, as the American colonists did in the 1700s, and make sure that it does happen.
Economic theory dictates that, if the workers can’t earn a living one way, they will reallocate their resources and find another way to earn a living. That’s way over-simplified. There are other alternatives, some of which are quite distasteful. There are rather a lot of theories that end in the breakup of the USofA. Here’s one.
So, yes, I agree that the workers don’t own the jobs. On the other hand, if the actions of the elites, be they Democrat or Republican, result in the creation of an angry dispossessed underclass, then the elites may not like the result.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 2:35 pm

In your mind, the people who own companies aren’t people?
What you are demanding is the right to take the product of other people’s work for your own benefit.
That is not what the founding fathers fought for. In fact it is more like the opposite of what they fought for.
I agree that when people who are convinced that they are owed a living, don’t get that living, they get mad. But unlike you, I don’t celebrate theft and murder.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 2:38 pm

(Since my first post disappeared into the ether)
Apparently you don’t believe that the people who run companies are actually people.
What you are advocating is the right of some people to take what others have produced and use it for their own benefit.
I will agree with you on one thing. When people who have been told all their life that they have a right to take from others aren’t permitted to do this, they get angry.
The difference between us is that you appear to believe that theft is OK, so long as the person being robbed has more than you do.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 2:40 pm

PS: Who the heck are these elite you whine about? Regardless, the second amendment means that the producers have the means to dissuade those who want to re-distribute the results of their hard work to themselves.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 3:59 pm

MarkW May 1, 2017 at 2:40 pm
PS: Who the heck are these elite you whine about?

I’m not whining, just trying to come to terms with what’s going on.
The American Dream says that people will be rewarded for their hard work and initiative and ingenuity. That requires that everyone believes in a level playing field and is willing to work hard. The elites are folks who have an advantage and attempt to tilt the field so they keep that advantage.
A Democrat elite has sprung up. link They have contempt for working people. They love theory and hate reality. They think that embracing complexity makes them appear more intelligent. In fact, their love of bs is why we had the complicated financial instruments that led to the meltdown of 2008.
The forgotten people that President Trump refers to are losing their faith in the level playing field. It’s a Yuge problem.

Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 4:20 pm

MarkW May 1, 2017 at 2:35 pm
… But unlike you, I don’t celebrate theft and murder.

When I ventured the opinion that Donald Trump might win, some people were very upset with me. It didn’t mean that I was a Trump supporter, I was just calling it the way I saw it. Believe me, I do not celebrate theft and murder. The fact that I’m worried about social unrest and the collapse of America doesn’t mean I’m in any way happy about it.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2017 6:56 am

The playing field is level. Just because it’s not providing the results you want, is not evidence that it isn’t.

Reply to  MarkW
May 2, 2017 6:58 am

As to people who been raised on the belief that they have a right to a good standard of living regardless of how they live their lives, getting upset when the unicorns don’t show up. You are 100% correct. That’s going to happen. However it is not the fault of the economic system, that is the fault of the political system and the economic fact that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Bruce Cobb
May 1, 2017 4:00 am

The stupid being spewed from Cole’s mouth burns even worse than sarin gas.

Joel O’Bryan
May 1, 2017 4:02 am

The demand for thought purity on the Left is not just confined to the Climate Hustle. It is now manifested to other SJW causes like LGBT issues and the debate over access to abortion services. The new DNC chairman Tom Perez has stated the party will not support any of its politicians who who aren’t “pro-choice.”
At least in the US, the liberals have committed themselves to a self-destructive political path.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
May 1, 2017 7:03 am

Right? I guess practicing Catholics can forget all about voting Democratic. Way to go, Lefties–keep self-destructing, we Deplorables are watching with wine and popcorn!

Reply to  Goldrider
May 1, 2017 8:28 am

Unfortunately there are a lot of Catholics who put ideology ahead of theology.

May 1, 2017 4:12 am

Another first class essay by Paul Driessen. Thank you Paul.

May 1, 2017 4:21 am

“A deadly gas? Carbon dioxide is the Miracle Molecule that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible. Plants absorb CO2 exhaled by humans and animals, and emitted by burning wood, dung, fossil fuels and biofuels – and then release oxygen that people and wildlife need to survive.”
A true but essentially stupid statement.
From wiki the body must have these subtances to survive
Selenium mass 0.000015 required toxic in higher amounts
Fluorine mass 0.0026 required toxic in high amounts
Phosphorus mass 0.78 required (e.g. DNA and phosphorylation)
Chlorine mass 0.095 required (e.g. Cl-transporting ATPase)
should you therfore be saying
“Fluorine a deadly gas? fluorine is a miracle molecule providing protection against dental caries.”
“Selenium a deadly substance? selenium is a miracle mineral providing protection against free radicles.”
Essential to human life but I would change you to take excess of any of these substances.-

Andrew N
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 4:49 am

Why is this a stupid statement? Carbon dioxide is essential to life on this planet. Without the carbon dioxide cycle there is no life.
Carbon dioxide is only dangerous to humans if it is an asphyxiate. That is, it excludes oxygen in sufficient quantity. The same goes for water, nitrogen, dirt or any other inert substance you would care to choose.
Fluorine is present in the body as fluorides. Vastly different substances. Fluorine is a deadly gas not encountered in nature because in its pure form as it immediately reacts with pretty much anything. Fluorine does not protect against dental caries, fluorides do.
Ditto Chlorine
Ditto Phosphorus.
Do not confuse an element with its compounds. Chlorine and Sodium are highly reactive, dangerous in their elemental forms. Together as sodium chloride they make things taste so much better.

Reply to  Andrew N
May 1, 2017 4:21 pm

I am pretty certain that even if you have 20% oxygen, high levels of CO2 (ie a few % by volume) will cause breathing problems by restricting the lungs from getting rid of CO2 and causing a buildup in the blood. It’s not just deadly when it displaces oxygen. Perhaps I misunderstood, though.

Nigel S
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 4:55 am

‘From wiki’
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals.
Watch out for that dihydrogen monoxide, that’s a killer too!

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 4:58 am

mercury NON essential to life,
safe level in a human acc to EPA is 5nanograms per 10kg weight
thats ingested and possible bodily removeable..
one Hep B vaccine in a 4kg or so day old baby?
mercury as thimerosal 250nanograms
excess chlorine n fluoride daily as a matter of course in most water supplies
reckon we have a sh*tload more than co2 to be worried over

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 1, 2017 2:31 pm

You trust our EPA? That is your first mistake. Your second mistake is to assume that all chemical combinations of potentially toxic elements are as dangerous as the individual components. If that were so, no one would dare consume sodium chloride (table salt!). What is most critical is the solubility in water or stomach acid, which determines the bioavailability. Elements with strong covalent bonding are typically only slightly soluble and therefore have low bioavailability.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 5:21 am

Since the planet is greening and plants are becoming more drought resistant it would be hard to argue that CO2 is in excess. True statements are not stupid. You sound like one of those people who signed the petition to outlaw Di-hydrogen Monoxide. After all it is the chief component of acid rain!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 5:22 am

If CO2 is a “deadly gas”, then di-hydrogen monoxide is a “deadly liquid”, and even oxygen is a “deadly gas”.

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 5:41 am

Risk = hazard x exposure. CO2 is harmless, hazard = zero. Exposure can be rounded to zero at the precision of 0.1%. But the risk stories are so much better by experts 3-2-1comment image

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 6:48 am

All I’m pointing out is that sometimes essential molecule /mineral etc, can be toxic if a certain level is exceeded. The stupidity comes from repeating the same statement frequently when all understand that CO2 is essential to life, without adding the safe limits.
What are safe levels of CO and CO2 in rooms?
250-350ppm Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air
350-1,000ppm Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange
1,000-2,000ppm Complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000-5,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
5,000 Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions.
>40,000 ppm Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.
It looks like exceeding 1000ppm is unwise. Also what about those with reduced lung capacity I- is 1000ppm still safe?
You also need to look at the nutrition of food grown at high CO2 levels Some crops show reduced protein
Casava shows a doubling of cyanide compound in their leaves
Total N (used here as a proxy for protein content) and cyanogenic glycoside concentrations of the tubers were not significantly different in the plants grown at elevated CO2. By contrast, the concentration of cyanogenic glycosides in the edible leaves nearly doubled in the highest Ca. If leaves continue to be used as a protein supplement, they will need to be more thoroughly processed in the future. With increasing population density, declining soil fertility, expansion into marginal farmland, together with the predicted increase in extreme climatic events, reliance on robust crops such as cassava will increase. The responses to CO2 shown here point to the possibility that there could be severe food shortages in the coming decades unless CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced, or alternative cultivars or crops are developed.
Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown in elevated CO2 (PDF Download Available). Available from: [accessed May 1, 2017]. 
Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.
Högy P1, Wieser H, Köhler P, Schwadorf K, Breuer J, Franzaring J, Muntifering R, Fangmeier A.
Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv. TRISO) was grown for three consecutive seasons in a free-air carbon dioxide (CO(2)) enrichment (FACE) field experiment in order to examine the effects on crop yield and grain quality. CO(2) enrichment promoted aboveground biomass (+11.8%) and grain yield (+10.4%). However, adverse effects were predominantly observed on wholegrain quality characteristics. Although the thousand-grain weight remained unchanged, size distribution was significantly shifted towards smaller grains, which may directly relate to lower market value. Total grain protein concentration decreased significantly by 7.4% under elevated CO(2), and protein and amino acid composition were altered. Corresponding to the decline in grain protein concentration, CO(2) enrichment resulted in an overall decrease in amino acid concentrations, with greater reductions in non-essential than essential amino acids. Minerals such as potassium, molybdenum and lead increased, while manganese, iron, cadmium and silicon decreased, suggesting that adjustments of agricultural practices may be required to retain current grain quality standards. The concentration of fructose and fructan, as well as amounts per area of total and individual non-structural carbohydrates, except for starch, significantly increased in the grain. The same holds true for the amount of lipids. With regard to mixing and rheological properties of the flour, a significant increase in gluten resistance under elevated CO(2) was observed. CO(2) enrichment obviously affected grain quality characteristics that are important for consumer nutrition and health, and for industrial processing and marketing, which have to date received little attention.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 8:18 am

Please do more research . From scientific sites , not political ones .
I suspect every qualified Submariner who has read your post is ROFLTAO .(T =their )
Check USN standards. Your numbers are incorrect . Have a nice day .

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 8:40 am

Thank you Sweet Old Bob – I’m not a qualified submariner, and yet I know that US subs run for months at a time with 8,000ppm CO2 levels with no ill effects to the submariners.
Perhaps a change of the human-centric perspective to one of All Carbon Based Life Forms would help with this debate:
“Soybean seed yield was always increased by elevated CO2”

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 12:17 pm

These three generations have been raised in a ‘suddenly enriched’ environment. Without consideration of what will happen through breeding (wheat is highly bred) it matters little what they found. All they have to do is select for improvements that they like instead of ones they don’t. With the biomass and grain yield increase, there is at least some room for breeding better characteristics with a slight loss of yield, because there is a lot more yield spare.

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 12:30 pm

Can anyone find another plant on Earth that decreases in total weight in all parts of the plant with increased concentrations of CO2 from 320-710 ppm? That’s an amazing allegation! Not only that do the plants decrease in total mass, and do so linearly, but they also double the CN- composition within their leaves! Here we have the world’s first plant that is diminished in every way by increased CO2!
Quick, someone reproduce their work!
Dang’o dang, which study to believe? The one that conforms to known science, or the one that flies directly in the face of known science and doesn’t even mention that those results are astonishingly surprising?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 2:37 pm

You said, “All I’m pointing out is that sometimes essential molecule /mineral etc, can be toxic if a certain level is exceeded.” ALL such essential compounds can be fatal if too much is consumed. People have foolishly drank too much water and died from it. Things like common table salt can be toxic if too much is consumed. “The poison is in the dose” is an old saying. Before the invention of antibiotics, mercury compounds were used to treat diseases like syphilis.

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 2:41 pm

Human breath contains about 40,000 ppm of CO2. Submarine air might reach 11,000 ppm.
What are safe levels of carbon dioxide?
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a colorless, odorless gas, have been known to reach 3,000 parts per million (ppm) in homes, schools, and offices with no ill effects. The maximum recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an 8-hour occupation is 5,000 ppm (13 times the current level of 380 ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also use 5,000 ppm as their threshold for occupational safety.
But 5,000 ppm appears to be a very conservative estimate of safe levels because other sources claim we can tolerate up to 1.5% of it in air, 15,000 parts per million.
Consider: people with respiratory problems are given medical gas typically consisting of 95 percent oxygen and 50,000 ppm (5 percent) carbon dioxide. This gas can also be obtained with CO2 ranging from 1% to as high as 10% for treating people who have been asphyxiated.
Also consider: we would die if we did not breathe in such a way as to retain very close to 65,000 ppm (6.5%) of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air sacs) of our lungs.
And finally, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) reports that 100,000 ppm (10%) of CO2 is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life.

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 2:43 pm

No wonder that statists love CACA.
They get to tax breathing!

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 2:56 pm

The CO2 which used to be in the atmosphere went into making photosynthetic organisms, first cyanobacteria in the Archean Eon, which microbes in the Proterozoic Eon got incorporated into eukaryotes, which evolved into algae, thence into plants in the Phanerozoic Eon:

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 3:05 pm

As a former wheat rancher living near an experiment station where miracle varieties of grain have been developed to help feed the world by quadrupling yield in conjunction with chemicals from fossil fuels, I can tell you that if CO2 increased suddenly to the optimum of 1300 ppm, we would soon have new seeds which maintained or improved quality, protein and milling properties while also taking advantage to the big increase in total mass.
More CO2 is definitely a good thing.

Reply to  Smueller
May 1, 2017 3:19 pm

Bear in mind that the first two generations of AGW advocates thought that more CO2 in the air would be beneficial, because of the warming, which is hypothetical in the real climate system, but definitely for plant growth and drought resistance.

May 1, 2017 5:27 am

Religions seldom pay attention to factual data. They don’t need to – they have faith. These greenies are very reminiscent of the new England Puritans of Colonial days. Executions for heresay did very occasionally occur. These present day greenies are violent-talking cowardly wimps , afraid of counter evidence to their imaginary claims. Never have so many claiming to be suporters of science displayed such ignorance about the subject. Science is ALL about arguments and skepticism and evidence and there is not one single science that anyone could accurately claim to be “settled.” Certainly not the primitive sceince of climatology, whose wayward predictions have proven itself anything but settled. And when a “global warming pause occurs,” note that this “settled science” produces dozens of incompatible theories to explain what the science said could not be happening
in the first place, including claims that we are experiencing “record hot years” that are not statistically record years at all, and refer to but a short span of years in which a “record” means little. It’s hard to find a people and era in which so many in the public were so ignorant, yet so passionate about a subject – Nazi Germany would be one place I can think of.

Reply to  arthur4563
May 1, 2017 7:09 am

These “greenies” are also concentrated in blue-bubble cities on the East and West coasts. Do you see Midwestern farmers freaking out over CAGW even though they’d have the most to lose? Of course not, because they’re OUTDOORS every day, living and working in the weather and observing conditions with their own eyes. All these “activists” know about nature is what they see on heavily-propagandized TV shows on NatGeo network and Animal Planet. My mother gets a bunch of mags. from green NGO’s and to read this shit you’d think the world was ending next week! Much of it is 100% ass-backwards WRONG, but they publish it shamelessly, shilling for dollars, and the susceptible suck it up absolutely uncritically. They WANT to believe it because it feeds their negative, depressive’s apocalyptic worldview.

May 1, 2017 5:40 am

Never listen to a climate scientist. Check the MSDS
Asphyxiant in high concentrations
Acute toxicity : Not classified
Ecological information
No ecological damage caused by this product.
It seems professorships are handed ou like candy…
Juan R. I. Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History and he claims…
The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions
No wonder the US has a problem with its education.

May 1, 2017 5:41 am

Lefties come out on to the streets for just one reason every time.
To rage against God / Mother Nature for making them so ugly.
They need counselling in self-esteem and anger management.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  ptolemy2
May 1, 2017 6:17 am

Ptolemy2 – don’t forget the “social ecstasy” they experience while gathered in a large (and protected), attention-wh*ring bubble of like-minded “passionates”, mindlessly chanting their CAGW Kum-Bi-Yi Mantras – each one no-doubt eyeing some hot-looking guy/gal in the crowd for a later amorous rendezvous at the Protest After-Party.
Hell, it’s almost as good as it was in the 60’s!

Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
May 1, 2017 6:41 am

hot-looking guy/gal
I think you have to call them trans people now.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
May 1, 2017 8:27 am

“Hell, it’s almost as good as it was in the 60’s!”
Especially if you dig chicks who don’t like soap or shaving their legs or ‘pits. *Whew*
I watched the March coverage on CSpan. Climate was almost a tertiary consideration. The talks all dealt with race and gender, then economics. Toward the end of each speech they would throw in some remark about “Hey, also climate change affects the marginal people of the world the most.” Kind of an after thought.
Of course, each rant began with the speaker calling out some word in Swahili or Hindi and the crowd shouting it back. I’m sure if you had stood on the stage and shouted “Osso buco!” they would’ve answered back the same.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 5:59 am

Here’s a thought. Unfortunately for round here recently, it means having a measure of empathy and understanding for these people. Mockery and derision is pretty childish when all said & done.
What about – ‘the people are scared, they are frightened of something’
The fact that a lot of them are dreaming up ever more frightening scenarios and scaring themselves is plainly indicative of what? Something that feeds itself (nice positive feedback going on there) and those afflicted become ever more ‘afflicted’
Now, what are they scared of, primarily if not The Future? Themselves possibly meeting a horrible fate and, how many times do we hear, The Children and The Grandchildren.
(Of course, monotheism has one he11 of a lot to answer for there, Guilt, Guilt and Guilt to the power of n but that’s how democracy works and its the best we have.)
So, why so scared of the future, what is ‘being scared’, what is panic?
Panic is a good word innit, it explains all the exhortation to ‘act now’ ‘350 or bust’ ‘2’C is too high’ ‘tipping point’ and blah blah blah
I suggest people panic because, when confronted by a new situation, threatening, dangerous or mentally challenging, they cannot quickly work out, in their own minds, a solution to this challenge. Their minds go blank and hence you get panic. Classically of course its being confronted by a Sabre Tooth Tiger but there are many things in the modern world to replace the tiger.
Another way of realising is that they have lost their self-confidence.
If ever any one of us undergoes alcohol counselling, there will hopefully come a point when, as you enter the consulting room, the counsellor will say and without either of you exchanging a prior word ” Ah Peta, I see you’ve regained your self confidence. My work here is done”
Alcohol is the depressant. It steals your self confidence = your ability to think and act quickly & decisively and hence facilitates ‘panic’
Sugar (carbohydrate food) does exactly the same thing. and what’s demoralising is that now, being so many of us, there is nothing else to eat, but sugar.
Yes the people are behaving stupid, dumb, unthinking, lashing out, irrational and are great fun to make fun of, but Its Not Their Fault,
Its their diet. Everyone’s diet

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 7:12 am

Ignorance is no excuse.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 1, 2017 12:22 pm

Ignorance is their only excuse.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 1, 2017 12:39 pm

Ignorance is 9/10 the CAGW Law

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 7:14 am

They’re afraid they’re going to have to get a miserable, dead-end, spirit-killing JOB. And become an adult and pay their bills. That no on’e going go care about actualizing their potential, or nurturing their artistic temperament. That they may have to put on real clothes and show up somewhere on time, keep their pants on and perform a mind-numbing, irrelevant task for the greater glory of capitalism! That’s the young ones; the old ones are just reliving their glory days “marching” for whatever back in the 60’s–second childhood.

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 7:16 am

Your comparison to dealing with alcoholism is a good analogy in many ways.
Our problem is that we’re dealing with a whole pack of mean drunks who won’t be satisfied until they can force us to get drunk along with them, and who at the very least are dedicated to stealing all of our money to support their habit.
And yes, it’s about fear, but we’re dealing with the people who in previous generations would have been hard core religious fundies – they’re ALWAYS scared of life. They’re a bundle of desperate fears in search of a reason to be scared, and if it wasn’t this, it’d be something else. A lot of people are just like that, and you can never appease them, you have to fight them. Success only comes when you can make them more afraid of you than they are afraid of anything else.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  wws
May 1, 2017 12:23 pm

It is a substitute for the Hell-fire and brimstone they no longer receive in church each week.

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 7:39 am

Help must be sought voluntarily before it can be given.

Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 11:43 am

You’re right my comment was indulgent and not exactly constructive or engaging. My bad.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
May 1, 2017 11:44 am

“Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son.” Dean Wormer

May 1, 2017 6:09 am

Honest question here. The alarmist parties are quick to march and make their proclamations. Why can’t we do our own march? Seriously! I’ve never done a protest/awareness march, but this is something I would be willing to do, although we would be mocked up and down for being idiots. At the same time, isn’t that what we’re saying about them? Personally, I’m getting tired of being accused of being anti-science when the actual science seems to support a non-alarmist viewpoint. I’m ready to march. I want to march. I think we need to march. We need to send a clear and loud message, but do it peacefully and with a modicum of class, unlike the other side. As an added bonus, we can allow them to register their own floats and then deny them entry, just as they did to us. It’s a win-win!

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 6:28 am

Joz – as Peta points out in the post above yours, their motivations aren’t really about the issue. It’s about their insecurities in a complex and changing world. I don’t think us “skeptics” suffer from that kind/flavor of insecurity issue. And the “confident” generally feel no need to Demonstrate. Let the ignorant & insecure (and brain-washed) wail and tear their hair & clothes all they want.

Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
May 1, 2017 7:18 am

This public acting-out behavior is having it’s “moment,” as is the “trans-gender” thing. We’ve had 5 of these stupid things since Inauguration Day, it’s already becoming a cliche, and if it weren’t for the cable channels looking for drama to fill up 24 hours of propaganda/news, no one would be paying attention anymore. I’m not sure anyone is; TV viewership across all markets is tanking and the lib-leaning papers are in trouble.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 6:30 am

The liberal socialist left will not let you have a “peaceful” march

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 7:06 am

With what message and how? Skepticism is inherently apolitical. Nah, the more creative the alarmist demonstrations have been, the more net positive contribution to my lifespan:comment image

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
May 1, 2017 11:25 am

Looking for empirical evidence?

Bryan A
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
May 1, 2017 12:43 pm

Looking for the brain cell that was Nye Lost many a moon ago

Patrick MJD
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
May 2, 2017 5:55 am

Assume the position for a tax on life!

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 8:48 am

Skeptics dissent to AGW isn’t based on the rejection of collectivism alone. There in lies the core problem of skeptical organization.
Think of the White Russians outside Red held Moscow in 17′-22′. At times 5 or more to 1 superiority with foreign help as well. How they lost and why should be a modeled lesson to pandering skeptics who buy in to just enough green policy to effectively incubate the greater AGW cartel. The Bolsheviks won because of the ability to make deals with natural enemies of their principals.
To continue the metaphor think of Rex Tillerson wanting to keep Paris and supporting a carbon tax which you would find is the official Exxon talking point as well. Many large better informed interests labeled by the minion marchers as “evil”and “deniers” are in fact supporting their AGW premise if for reasons beyond their comprehension.
The irony is always astounding and never acknowledged in the media. It’s Orwellian in scale.
So you’re dreaming if you think AGW skeptics could could unify for a cohesive political act. A large chunk of them can’t acknowledge the political underpinnings of AGW as a rule. In the end the Whites hated themselves more then they hated the Reds and the world paid the price as well as themselves. Skeptics have shared to this point the same fate.

Reply to  cwon14
May 1, 2017 10:04 am

Skeptics are failing for the simple reason they are wrong. They can make all the straw man arguments they like but in the end events will prove just how wrong they are.

Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 12:54 pm

Jack Davis

Skeptics are failing for the simple reason they are wrong. They can make all the straw man arguments they like but in the end events will prove just how wrong they are.

Hmmmn. Just what evidence have I missed that proves
(1) That Global Warming will continue?
(2) That Global Warming will be Catastrophic, and not Beneficial or Not Benign (Negligible)?
(3) That TRULY DEADLY and CATASTROPHIC efforts to artificially limit man’s CO2 releases will change any future potential global warming?
(4) That man’s current release of CO2 into the atmosphere has harmed anything, but instead has done anything but encourage ADDITIONAL plant growth?

Reply to  cwon14
May 1, 2017 11:14 am

Where are we wrong?
Are we wrong in pointing out that the models have failed to make accurate hindcasts?
Are we wrong in pointing out that the models have failed to make accurate forecasts?
Are we wrong in pointing out that there is nothing unusual about current temperatures and that temperatures over the last 5000 years have not only been much warmer than they are now, but for most of that time have been warmer than they are now?
Are we wrong in pointing out that there was less ice in the arctic in the 1930’s than there is now?

Reply to  cwon14
May 1, 2017 11:27 am

“but in the end” ah, but don’t worry, the end is always 20 years away.

Bryan A
Reply to  cwon14
May 1, 2017 12:46 pm

A salient point Mr Turner.

Bryan A
Reply to  cwon14
May 1, 2017 12:51 pm

None of us alive today, will live long enough to see if the year 2100 dire predictions prophisized by the oracles models are proven by imperical measurements or not. We probably will live long enough to see if the “Melting Arctic” has any negative effect once that “Ice Free Summer” actually arrives though. Think I’ll water ski to Russia.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 9:15 am

“Our” signs wouldn’t match.
There would be NO vagina hats.
Only ten people would show up.
( The LGBTQ people, The Mexican immigrant people, The Muslim people etc. would just be American people.)
The rest have to go to work.
The ten are between jobs.
No mess would be left behind.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
May 1, 2017 11:30 am

We’re interested in science, not activism; nor are we concerned about being vocal, good science stands on its own petards, it needs no Lorax.

May 1, 2017 6:20 am
May 1, 2017 7:17 am

It’s not what you don’t know that is dangerous, it’s what you know that ain’t so. Also Twain.

May 1, 2017 7:20 am

The core issue in the rise of UN sponsored climate authority and it’s global collectivism is the disunity and weakness of skeptic resistance.
Greenshirts are in the moral and intellectual wrong (science) but they can put hundreds of thousands in the streets and dominate the growth of climate policy (politics).
They’ll run the clock out on Trump and the green boot will be on the march again. 2 million US jobs in the climate related bubble and Trump isn’t going to pop it with such a weak knee, pandering and disorganized skeptic base. That a bulk of skeptics generally don’t or can’t accept the central planning statism at the heart of AGW activism was the fatal flaw the past 45 years. For greens collectivism remains the dominating and unifying undercurrent regardless of nuance in climate position.
Hence Trump is considering reneging on the Paris withdrawal or kicking it to the Senate for a weak treatment or worse. I don’t see the active skeptic science team in place or likely from the WH. The AGW farce will go on because the skeptic resistance farce remains entrenched. Sure, Trump can be blamed for a flip flop but it was only in the face of really poor and disorganized support that his calculus operated.

Eugene WR Gallun
May 1, 2017 7:20 am

The Greenies should have marched with plastic bags over their heads, tied tight around their necks.
Eugene WR Gallun

May 1, 2017 8:17 am

I once debated a young socialist who believed that the greatest mistake mankind ever made was to abandon the hunter gather lifestyle for farming.
He actually claimed that hunter gatherers were healthier and lived longer than humans in the 21st century.
For some reason, he continued to abuse his family by not converting them to a hunter gatherer existence.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 8:38 am

I recall a number of years ago, a group of scientists thought they would investigate the diets of Paleolithic men (from archeological remains etc.) in order to formulate dietary recommendations for modern humans. However, once they’d completed their study they found that our ancestors survived on a lot of meat and few leafy greens. So they altered their recommendations to be more like the usual health conscious recommendations saying that modern humans were more sedentary than our ancient brethren. As for me, I will stick with Longhorn’s and the wisdom of our ancestors. 😉

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2017 2:44 pm

Ants took up ‘farming’ long before humans did. They are still going strong!

Jim G1
May 1, 2017 8:27 am

Don’t forget Hollywood in the propaganda mix! Like Forrest Gump says, “Stupid is as stupid does.” And he and his momma, Sally Fields, should know! Too bad Dicaprio wasn’t in that movie to make it a stupid trifecta. Add Alec Baldwin and a picture of the four of them could be placed in the dictionary under the definition of stupid. These folks and their ilk probably have more negative influence upon our society than the news media and educational system combined.

May 1, 2017 8:30 am

A good start would be to not have energy policy in the first place.
Let the market decide which power sources are best able to deliver reliable power at the cheapest price.
(Note: I’m not advocating eliminating pollution control regulations.)

May 1, 2017 9:42 am

The good professor didn’t say CO2 was poisonous to living things. He said that pumping it into the environment would cause more human death than sarin. He is right. That you could not understand his point speaks volumes about your credentials.

Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 10:10 am

Thanks Jack for clearing that up.
CO2 is only poisonous to non-living things.
Where again are those human remains after their death by CO2??
I haven’t seen that.
I only know about 6.5 billion people who are alive by virtue of CO2.
This includes you too, Mr. Credentials.

Reply to  RobRoy
May 1, 2017 11:36 am

…and yet that doesn’t mean it has qualities that are also harmful.
Co2 allows light through, but doesn’t easily allow heat through, very much the way glass on a greenhouse does. That is irrefutable. We know that.
At levels close to the natural level, that effect makes the planet comfortably habitable for many species. At extreme levels it causes the mean temperature to rise, making harmful to numbers of species and systems…for example allowing tundra to thaw and release large amounts of methane or causing more violent weather, drought, etc.
The problem is that while the evidence is very strong there are those who apparently want climate change to occur, I can only suspect so that they can impose severe governmental control. Climate change denial is a long con to take control of every aspect of your life. They have to let it happen so they can do so. What else could be their motivation?

Thomas Homer
Reply to  RobRoy
May 1, 2017 12:07 pm

John says: “Co2 allows light through, but doesn’t easily allow heat through, very much the way glass on a greenhouse does. That is irrefutable. We know that.”
Doesn’t easily allow heat through? The Mars’ atmosphere is 95% CO2, and it sheds over 200 degrees F every night (similar in length to Earth’s night) – I’d say that’s allowing a lot of “heat through”. Does this property of CO2 exist on Mars?

Reply to  RobRoy
May 1, 2017 1:00 pm

In John’s world, CO2 is the only green house gas.
It’s well known to all but you climate alarmists that the almost all of the bands that CO2 is capable of absorbing are already saturated. The only bands that aren’t saturated are in an area of the spectrum in which the earth radiates very little energy.
The result of this is that more CO2 has very, very little impact on how much heat the earth retains.
From whence do you get the nonsense that warmer temperatures must necessarily be harmful to life.
In the past, warm periods were called Optimums, life flourished during these warm periods.
Actual science shows that bacteria and moss consume all the methane before it can reach the atmosphere. Regardless methane breaks down to CO2 and water in short order.
There isn’t a scintilla of evidence that warmer temperatures cause storms to be more violent or for droughts to be harsher or more frequent.
In fact the what evidence there is goes the other way. Droughts in the US were much more severe during the Little Ice Age and there has been no increase in storm energy over the last 30 to 40 years.
So why is it that you are so willing to spread lies?
Either you are an idiot, or you have an ulterior motive.
Which is it?

Reply to  RobRoy
May 1, 2017 1:07 pm

John May 1, 2017 at 11:36 am
There is no evidence whatsoever that an extra molecule of CO2 in the air, up from three to four per 10,000 dry air molecules over the past century, has had any effect on climate at all, although it has demonstrably greened the planet. Adding two more molecules of plant food would also be beneficial.
The atmosphere is I’m glad to say not dry everywhere, but mostly more or less wet, with the GHG H2O averaging around 30,000 ppm or 300 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules, versus the present four CO2 molecules.

Reply to  RobRoy
May 1, 2017 1:32 pm

“but doesn’t easily allow heat through”
NON-FACT.. and totally and absolutely WRONG
Experiments done with double glazing show that normal air is a BETTER insulator than high percentage CO2
You have fallen for the most blatant of AGW LIES. !
The word is GULLIBLE and BRAIN-WASHED… until there is no brain left..

Bengt Abelsson
Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 10:40 am

Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack “consumed the world’s attention,” Prof. Cole intones, but President Trump is committed to releasing hundreds of thousands of tons a day “of a far more deadly gas – carbon dioxide.”
Perhaps you would want to improve on your reading skills? The key words are “a far more deadly gas”.
With reservations for the accuracy of the source.

Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 11:16 am

CO2 levels have been above 7000ppm. Not only did nothing die from it, life thrived.
Is there anything you know that is actually true?

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 11:20 am

Jack Davis May 1, 2017 at 9:42 am
The good professor didn’t say CO2 was poisonous to living things. He said that pumping it into the environment would cause more human death than sarin. He is right.
That you, Jack, think the “good professor” is right speaks volumes about your gullibility/stupidity and/or malevolence.

Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 11:21 am

Both points are invalid and very (very very very) stupid.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jack Davis
May 1, 2017 4:03 pm

By that “logic”, cars are also more deadly than sarin gas. Heart disease is more deadly than sarin gas. I mean, sarin gas is looking like a real piker in the cause of death department. I don’t even know what all the fuss is about it.

May 1, 2017 10:14 am

Happy Victims Of Communism Day everyone!!

Thomas Homer
May 1, 2017 10:18 am

Jack Davis says: “pumping [CO2] into the environment would cause more human death than sarin”
It took me a moment, but now I see how you can be right. Since ‘pumping CO2 into the environment’ will feed all life and result in more Carbon Based Life Forms. More Carbon Based Life Forms will include more humans. Since each human life ends in death, then …
More Life –> More Death

May 1, 2017 10:47 am

Rules for Climate Radicals; A Good Tactic is One Your People Enjoy
Hangout With Communists, Beatniks, and Other Undesirables to Piss Your Parents Off:comment image?w=562&h=504

May 1, 2017 11:08 am

This reads like a C- middle school essay.
Arguments alone are meaningless without data or verifiable facts.
Restate your arguments and support them with fact not speculation. Your very good point about the environmental impact of solar and wind farms needs to be supported by information. Does that negative impact equal or surpass the impact of greenhouse gasses, pollutants, etc?
Please resubmit

Reply to  John
May 1, 2017 11:54 am

There were plenty of links provided in the article.
Beyond that read the other articles from today and this past weekend.
Your lame attempts to distract are duly noted and ridiculed.

May 1, 2017 11:14 am

“Police are investigating an ‘appalling’ film that compares officers protecting a shale gas site to Nazi SS guards who murdered millions of Jews in the Holocaust.”

Reply to  mwhite
May 1, 2017 11:17 am

That’s what terrorists like to call each other.

Reply to  mwhite
May 1, 2017 11:23 am

The nu activist is like an out of control immune system that is attacking its own body without even knowing it.

May 1, 2017 11:16 am

Far left ideas are creeping into science. Now there are no acids and bases as defined by science, their identity is fluid. Forget that they have completely different properties, a solution can identify with whatever they feel they should be. Oceans may be alkaline, but they feel acidic, get it? Me either.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  RWturner
May 1, 2017 2:54 pm

As I understand it, the ‘new chemistry’ is that ALL aqueous solutions are acidic, as measured by the hydrogen ion concentration. Alkaline, basic, etc. are no longer useful concepts. People only need to know that “acid” is bad and highly acidic is even ‘badder.’ There is no point in muddying the water with nuances that were formerly thought to be essential. This way, the snowflakes can get out of college in 5 years instead of 6.

May 1, 2017 12:29 pm

Would love to have gone to that event with a sign that said:
We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.” Scientist James Lovelock

May 1, 2017 12:40 pm

“….life-giving carbon dioxide is more deadly than sarin gas!”
Apparently the U of Michigan history professor hasn’t consulted with people who grow and cultivate marijuana for a living. If he did, he’d know that marijuana farmers frequently pump CO2 into their greenhouses for larger yields.
In plain speak: CO2 matters!

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
May 1, 2017 12:56 pm

Cole’s polemical nonsense […]

Actually, Cole perfected his polemical nonsense skills many moons ago, while he was bolstering the “case” against the other of the UN’s two most favoured whipping boys, i.e. Israel.
Extensive documentation of Cole’s self-serving ineptitude on the “history” front here.

J Mac
May 1, 2017 12:59 pm

The intolerant ideologues, aka “Climate Crusaders”, depend on the gullible masses to support and achieve their agenda. The ‘climate’ they want to ‘change’ is destruction of support for capitalism and mass marching support of socialism. The gullible ‘snowflakes’ are the useful tools they need to make their ‘climate change’ happen. A song from my childhood seems to fit the Climate Crusader’s appreciation of ‘snowflakes’, in parody:
Snow Flake – Jim Reeves

May 1, 2017 1:22 pm

Ha, I knew it. The bearded sign interfering smurf in the video is actually the unshaven El Nino!comment image

May 1, 2017 1:28 pm

Walking to work this morning in downtown DC, the streets are littered with discarded signs and other trash left by the eco-activists.

J Mac
Reply to  TomB
May 1, 2017 1:55 pm

No surprise, at all….

Reply to  TomB
May 1, 2017 3:45 pm

It says a lot about their mindset.

Another Ian
May 1, 2017 2:00 pm

“NY Times furor due to half-skeptic — Mass subscription exodus? Best thing!”
And guess who features
“Hence their reaction was a turbo dummy spit — vowing to cancel the subscription to the newspaper that had fed their fantasy loyally for so many years. So much for loyalty:
Climate scientist Michael E. Mann launched the hashtag #ShowYourCancellation this week after the paper’s public editor defended the decision to hire the former Wall Street Journal columnist, dismissing its so-called “left-leaning critics” who they claimed were leading a “fiery revolt.”
Mann called for people to prove to the Times that they were actually ending their subscriptions to the paper over Stephens…”

Reply to  Another Ian
May 1, 2017 5:19 pm

This is the standard response from Mannian alarmists: instead of actually listening to, and engaging with, dissenters, they block their ears and shout “na na I can’t hear you!” as loud as they can.

The Badger.
May 1, 2017 5:07 pm

The observed phenomena of intolerance and violence pervades several areas of society in many parts of the world. It is not just debates about CAGW that exhibit it. When I was at University in the 1970’s we had intelligent debates about all sorts of stuff in a good natured fashion, we generally all shared a true interest in finding out how things, people, societies, cultures,etc worked. We would debate with friends who were entirely opposite to us politically. There were only a tiny minority of “radicals” & they were viewed by the rest of us a kids who hadn’t grown up.
Everything in Universities looks so different now. We have undergraduates who do not even know how to change a light bulb in their student digs.The intake is around 500% higher and the general level of intelligence is on average much lower (it has to be). No longer are Universities places for the top students but are effectively an “entitlement” for all. Schools and Universities compete on the basis of pass rates/grades and they therefore fudge it. My brother was a secondary school teacher for many years but resigned after they “instructed” him to mark answers on exam papers with at least some (maybe half) marks if the answer had the correct buzzwords in it even if the answer the student gave was complete nonsense.
As a society we have produced a vast army of highly qualified ignoramuses. And the ones who couldn’t get a “real” job are of course working now in MSM. On reflection the results of this are entirely consistent with predictions. The snowflake army rolls into a bigger ball every year and no longer are its eyes pieces of coal but now luminous green globs. LBGTQ sensitivities prevent me from telling you about the carrot.

Ron Williams
May 1, 2017 5:15 pm

Almost makes you want to sign up for the NYT when I hear they finally hired a luke warmer. I did read his article and wasn’t that impressed. Really didn’t say a whole lot about skepticism being the #1 rule about keeping science honest. Maybe mentioned it in passing but a very mild essay, and maybe a hint about the rollover of big city politics, especially with CAGW being the boogie man that a lot of people are starting to question everywhere.
The more I think about it, if abortion was much easier to access especially for the poor liberals, I would really support that since it is abundantly clear that many of these kooks should should either never reproduce or have never been born. That was what dropped the crime rate in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which was the result of Roe Vs. Wade that ensured a lot of the unplanned and unwanted pregnancies didn’t materialize. Just a basic fact.
To be fair to a lot of the protesters, they are just out for an afternoon of protest against everything right wing, any bitch they can think of and of course Trump. Plus a lot of them are paid to protest by forces with a lot of money or having influence from certain sectors, or have been deliberately trained in academia to lean this way, which has now crept into our public school system. And most on the public teat of some sort or another. Most of them don’t know any better, having been brainwashed from multiple sources. As compared to the skeptic crowd who are probably more middle class, rural, have a job or business, and vote right wing. Basically tribalistic red and blue politics.

May 2, 2017 3:44 am

Why can not someone make a climate model that matches temperature reality. How much work is it to modify the parameters of an existing model so that it tracks real temperatures?

L Garou
May 2, 2017 4:37 am

The People’s Republic of Democracy! (lol)

Lord Beavis
May 2, 2017 5:07 am

Oh Lord, Juan Cole. I wondered what rock he had crawled out from under. First he’s an expert on Islam, now climate science? Let’s just say he’s as informed about science as he is the other subject.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Lord Beavis
May 2, 2017 5:57 am

“Lord Beavis May 2, 2017 at 5:07 am
Oh Lord, Juan Cole.”
Pronounced One Coal! lol

May 2, 2017 6:18 am

No one has proposed or answered this question: Natural gas is used to generate electricity at some power plants. It’s also used for heating and cooking. Heat in the wintertime is nice to have, isn’t it?
Since these numbnuts take heat, electricity and other such modern conveniences for granted, how long does anyone think they’ll last when that’s all shut off, especially in the winter?

May 2, 2017 6:55 am

Carbon dioxide is nothing compared to the dangers of Di-Hydrogen monoxide.
100% of cancer patients have this chemical in their bodies and our food supply is laced with it.
This is what makes the chem trails visible.
A Traveler

Reply to  Teddy
May 2, 2017 8:35 am

Be careful. You might have professor Juan Cole teaching this in his class…

jim heath
May 2, 2017 10:08 am

The temperature rose 15 degrees today. I reckon by next Wednesday we will all be on fire.

May 2, 2017 1:44 pm

I got your trace gas right here:
Aquatic animals get by on less than 10 ppm oxygen.

May 2, 2017 3:40 pm

A small segment of the Left is starting to question the violent means they have employed. Well mainly their survival instincts are kicking in. Realising that further escalating the violence will end very badly for them when the Right decides it has had enough.
“Slowly the Left begins to grapple with the cycle of political violence they have begun and realize that this might end badly for them and America. That is not enough and is too late. Stopping the escalation requires the Left to see their role in it as other than pretty protesters with a tiny violent (but well-meaning) fringe.”
It is written in the language of a far left loon, so one must translate the “racist” and “alt-right” slur-speech into something comprehensible to one capable of critical thinking and self reflection.
Perlstein is probably right to be concerned about the right fighting back. It has started already and it was quickly discovered. The Fascist-Anti’s can’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

May 2, 2017 10:11 pm

And what are the green monsters doing to stop climate change? Enter geoengineers to the rescue! Blanket our atmosphere with aerosol sprays (Chemtrails) to block out the heat of the Sun – that’ll slow down the Global warming.
All the while the REAL scientific reality is that generally plants, via photosynthesis, sequester more CO2 from the atmosphere from higher natural light levels which means that geoengineers are slowing down natural atmospheric CO2 sequestration by plant vegetation from mass chemtrailing thereby applying a solution that directly opposes their theory and goal- human generated CO2 is a greenhouse gas, causes global warming and ocean acidification which means atmospheric CO2 needs to be reduced. The photosynthetic organisms will naturally regulate the atmospheric CO2 levels but this feedback is disrupted if geoengineers artificially reduces sunlight levels via chemtrailing. The green monsters claim to care about the environment while chemtrailing continues and expands in the name halting global warming. The entire situation is not only insane, it is criminal.

Paul Miller
May 3, 2017 7:10 am

On a more positive note. I read an article on the Environmental Defense Fund website by a scieintist who marched for the first time in the first science march on the 22d of Apr and we planning to march on the 29th. She seemed a sincere lady as are many who are currently afraid…very afraid. I was curious about how different her experiences were in the the “People’s Climate March” where one of the many stated goals is a socialist “system change” in lieu of climate change.
So I posted.
Into the moderation queue I went.
I figured my post would never see the light of day.
I was wrong.
Props to EDF for allowing a skeptic/denier to post on their page.
Haven’t seen any responses, but then again my post wasn’t the most cleanly written and cogent thing I’ve ever written either. I’m now at least a bit more hopeful that fruitful dialogue can happen. We shall see.
A link to the article page follows if anyone is interested.

May 3, 2017 12:22 pm

Some clarifications in the above article for accuracy. Dry ash is not used in wallboard. Dry fly ash is used extensively in producing concrete and cement. Also used as a flowable fill. Wet bottom ash is now used in producing blocks, decorative stones among other uses. Calcium sulfate (gypsum) created by removing SO2 from the gas generated by coal fired boilers is the product used very successfully in the wallboard industry. These are both products that were originally landfilled of ponded until the industry developed ways to utilize them as a useful product as opposed to waste. The coal fired plants and industry that I am a part of has done some very innovate things only to be demonized by those that are not in the know.
Older ash and slurry ponds were often not lined therefore they are a potential threat to the subsurface water and ground water. Those ponds should be drained and the waste placed in a properly lined land fill. However many other ponds have liners, just not modern day liners, and should be evaluated on a case by case basis. That is not what the new Coal Combustion Residuals (RCCs) regulations allow. One size fits all. Millions upon millions of dollars will be spent to close and move the contents of ponds that might be just fine if you cap them off. These CCR regulations were IMHO just the next step of the environmentalists and their partners in the EPA to shut down coal fired power plants.
The new Emission Limitation Guidelines were the next step in shutting down coal fired plants. These regulations were going to set very low concentrations of metals exiting the plant as waste water. Some of these elements should have reasonable concentration levels established and if removal is required the systems should be installed. However the emission limits were so low that technology does not even exist with any type of track record to meet the limits. But the guidelines were going to be implemented in spite of this. So a utility that makes the decision to continue operating a coal fired power plant was going to be forced to install very expensive technologies with high operating costs, an unproven record and decreases the reliability of the plant.
Notice I used the past tense in the above paragraph. Since Mr. Trump became president the ELGs have been withdrawn and delayed. That will give the industry a little breathing room.
It is and has been frustrating to see how an industry that has made so much progress in making coal a much cleaner fuel still gets demonized and excluded from being one of the future technologies to provide electricity. New coal fired plants are cleaner, more efficient and should be in the mix of future technologies for producing power. But, they are not even in the conservation.

Verified by MonsterInsights