Shameless fear-mongering – versus reality

Al Gore pedals climate and weather scam. CFACT film and Aussie book present Climate Facts.

Guest post by Paul Driessen,

Before I could enjoy a movie last week, I was forced to endure five minutes of climate and weather fear-mongering, when the theater previewed Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Sequel.” His attempt to pin every weather disaster of the past decade on humanity’s fossil fuel use felt like fifty minutes of water boarding.

Mr. Gore has made tens of millions of dollars pedaling this nonsense and his demand that modern society undergo a “wrenching transformation” from oil, natural gas and coal to a utopian make-believe world powered by biofuels, wind and solar power, electric vehicles and batteries.

Every alarmist prediction has been falsified by actual events: from soaring temperatures to an ice-free Arctic to monstrous hurricanes that have not hit the USA since 2005. His attempt to blame New York City floods during Superstorm Sandy ignored inconvenient truths like construction that narrowed the Hudson River by hundreds of feet, forcing any incoming water to rise higher … and flood Manhattan. Mr. Gore conveniently ignores even well known climate change and weather events of past centuries. No wonder this devotee of SUVs, private jets and multiple homes doesn’t have the spine to debate anyone over these issues. When he lectures us, he won’t even take questions that he has not preapproved.

Thankfully, those seeking an antidote or healthy dose of reality have alternatives. The Climate Hustle documentary film debunks scores of whacky predictions that never came true and presents solid evidence-based science from dozens of scientists who don’t accept “manmade climate crisis” claims. A new Australian book presents detailed and expert but fast-paced, readable material on key climate issues.

Climate Change: The Facts 2017 is the third in a series. Dedicated to the memory of the late, eminent Aussie geologist and climate scientist Bob Carter, its 22 chapters cover climate changes through the ages, the multiple natural forces that primarily drive climate and weather fluctuations, devious tricks that alarmist researchers have used to modify and “homogenize” actual temperature data, attempts to silence experts who focus on natural causes of climate change or on adaptation rather than costly “prevention,’ the historic context behind climate debates, and coral reef resilience amid alleged ocean “acidification.”

Assumed coral, shellfish and other asserted disasters from even slight changes in ocean pH are based on computer simulations that often extrapolate from laboratory experiments. John Abbott, Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy point out that some of those experiments actually added hydrochloric acid to fish tanks to simulate acidification presumed to result from slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide!

Carbon dioxide has been demonized because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel use, and many activists want to eliminate the oil, natural gas and coal that provide over 80% of US and global energy. Moreover, while it helps trap solar heat and keep Earth inhabitable, CO2 is the polar opposite of a “dangerous pollutant.”

CO2 is vital plant food and fertilizer, essential for photosynthesis. Without it, life on Earth would cease to exist. In conjunction with slightly warmer global temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended (and modern industrial era began), rising atmospheric CO2 levels are helping to “green” the planet, by spurring crop, forest and grassland plants to grow faster and better, Craig Idso and Matt Ridley explain. 25-50% of vegetated parts of our planet have gotten greener over the past 33 years, from the tropics to the Arctic, and 70% of that greening is due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only 4% has gotten browner.

Ian Plimer, Ken Ring and Nicola Scafetta discuss natural climate cycles and the long planetary and human experience with major climate changes and weather events. Nothing seen today is unprecedented, and most is far more benign than in the past, they note. Bjorn Lomborg and other authors explain why we must end our obsession with the “climate crisis” and other exaggerated threats, and with false solutions to fabricated climate disasters. We need to spend our limited time, money and resources on the many real, pressing problems that confront mankind in developed and developing nations alike.

My chapter in The Facts addresses those pressing humanity problems, largely in the context of Pope Francis’s Laudato Si encyclical. For countless millennia, I note, humans endured brutal, backbreaking lives cut short by malnutrition and starvation, wretched cold and poverty, foul air, filthy water, myriad diseases, absent sanitary practices, and simple wounds that brought gangrene, amputation and death.

Then, in just two centuries, via discovery and progress powered by fossil fuels, billions of people doubled their life spans and became healthy, well fed, prosperous, increasingly mobile, and able to afford wondrous medical and other technologies, foods, services, luxuries and leisure-time activities that previous generations could not even imagine.

Mechanized agriculture – coupled with modern fertilizers, hybrid and GMO seeds, irrigation and other advances – enable smaller numbers of farmers to produce bumper crops that feed billions, using less land, water and insecticides. Improved buildings keep out cold, heat, and disease-carrying rodents and insects, and better survive earthquakes and extreme weather. Electricity transformed every aspect of our lives.

“How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress, especially in the fields of medicine, engineering and communications?” His Holiness asks. Unfortunately, he then presents romanticized references to consistently mild climates, benevolent natural worlds and idyllic pastoral lives that never existed. He insists that Earth’s poorest people will soon face “grave existential risks” from planetary warming, if we do not quickly and significantly reduce fossil fuel use.

He ignores the absence of Real World evidence that greenhouse gases are causing climate chaos – and the compelling evidence that fossil fuels continue to bring enormous benefits.

Over the past three decades, oil, gas and especially coal have helped 1.3 billion more people get electricity and escape energy and economic destitution. China connected 99% of its population to the grid, mostly with coal. Average Chinese are now ten times richer and live 32 years longer than their predecessors did barely five decades previously. India is building numerous coal power plants to electrify its vast regions.

But more than 1.2 billion people (more than the USA, Canada, Mexico and Europe combined) still do not have electricity; another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 700 million still cook and heat with “renewable” wood, charcoal and animal dung.

Hundreds of millions get horribly sick – and five million die – every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having refrigeration, clean water and safe food. Hundreds of millions are starving or malnourished. Nearly 3 billion survive on a few dollars per day.

These destitute masses simply want to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. Instead, they are being told that “wouldn’t be sustainable.” They’re being told that improving their health, living standards and life spans is less important than avoiding the “looming climate cataclysm” that “threatens the very survival” of our wildlife, civilization and planet.

These claims – and the false solutions being offered to dire problems that exist only in alarmist movies, press releases and computer models – examine only far-fetched risks that fossil fuels supposedly might cause. They never consider the numerous dangers and damages those fuels reduce, prevent or eliminate. These attitudes are anti-science, anti-human, unjust, unethical – and genocidal.

Noted observer of popular culture Clive James wraps up this fascinating book. Proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end, he says. And yet it would be unwise to think mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense can be cured anytime soon. When this “threat” collapses, it will be replaced with another.

Al Gore, the IPCC, alarmist modelers and researchers, and EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme and carbon dioxide “endangerment” decision have all depended on the climate bogeyman. Eternal vigilance, education and pushback by the rest of us will be needed for years to come.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. (July 2017)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 7, 2017 5:16 am

Spot on Paul. I had to endure a preview at the cinema of Gore’s latest disaster blockbuster. It will be interesting to see if bombs.

Reply to  Julian
August 7, 2017 6:08 am

Oh I get it now. He was just aiming the remake at the preview audience and not ticket sales of the movie itself.

Jorg Pawlik
August 7, 2017 5:22 am

I’m sure you mean “peddle” rather than “pedal” …

Reply to  Jorg Pawlik
August 7, 2017 6:47 am

From the looks of him, it’s been a loooong time since Gore pedaled anything.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 7, 2017 5:22 am

Al Gore isn’t dumb; he’s just continuing to ride the horse which has brought him this far. He quite obviously doesn’t believe the need to conserve extends to him. To paraphrase Chico Escuela: “Global Warming been berry berry good to me!”.
There is absolutely no point arguing science with Al; he’s in it for the money and the spotlight.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 7, 2017 5:29 am

Right. He refuses to take questions because he knows that he doesn’t have the answers.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 6:29 am

Based on Gore’s lifestyle (excessive air travel, huge mansions, etc) it is clear he doesn’t believe a single word he says. But he needs to pay for that massive carbon footprint somehow!

August 7, 2017 5:29 am

The word is “peddles”. Pedals is wot bikes ‘ave (and how you make them go).

Reply to  rogertil
August 7, 2017 5:31 am

The Inglish langwage neads an overhawl to simplifie its spelling roolz.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 6:39 am

Th nglsh lngg cld b cnsdrbly shrtnd wtht th vwls. Stll hv the pddls nd pdls prblm thgh.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 6:48 am


Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 11:07 am

Cthulhu Fthgan!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 11:30 am

f u cn rd ths, y shd i lrn 2 spl?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 3:15 pm

Puddles and poodles? Now you’ve lost me! 🙂

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 3:23 pm

English: their our know rulz!

Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 7, 2017 3:27 pm

The object is communication – with the chosen audience.
I know pedals, in that context, is incorrect – but it communicates – albeit imperfectly.
And, yes, English could do with an overhaul – but there are so many options, so many opinions, no consensus would be achieved.
Just let English evolve as it always has done, since our Norman (nominally French) overlords introduced Frenchified words into a Germanic language understrate.
English then spent the last millennium exploring the world looking for words it can use – look on Wikipedia – “English words of XXXXX origin” – and all the while making up new words of its own.
Shakespeare alone contributed hugely

David Cage
Reply to  rogertil
August 8, 2017 11:24 pm

From the recent photos I think he really means that Gore needs to stop peddling lies and start to pedal a bike the same amount. The lavish lifestyle his fake climate change activities make possible have not done his figure any good at all.

August 7, 2017 5:35 am

When will this subject deserve a post here? Is it the new Galileo moment for the greenhouse hypothesis of not?

Richard M
Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 7:09 am

Because it was covered in detail around 5 years ago. You might want to start here.

Reply to  Richard M
August 8, 2017 4:40 am

Thanks. I read the elevator speech. My answer is that Willis makes a mistake. His planet is at a lower temperature than the transparent compression heated atmosphere. His elevator speech does not refute anything.

Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 7:10 am

Not. I read the paper on which this is based. Ridiculous nonsense.

Reply to  ristvan
August 7, 2017 8:39 am

Would love to hear your arguments, Rud. That’s why I think the subject would make a good post here because it would get a thorough examination. 🙂

Reply to  ristvan
August 7, 2017 4:01 pm

The fact that the warming is predicted to such accuracy is not rediculous. What model does that? Are climate scientists so arrogant that they think they can ignore an approach that demonstrably is better than theirs? Sad.

Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 7:46 am

I think it deserves a post here, but I don’t think the solar insolation/atmospheric pressure model has gotten to the point where it is definitive, so we shouldn’t be proclaiming the Greenhouse gas effect has been replaced.
I suppose the pressure model and the greenhouse gas effect could work on the same planet.
This subject will be discussed as more information becomes available.

Roy Spencer
Reply to  TA
August 7, 2017 9:06 am

It’s been covered here and elsewhere (e.g. at Of course planetary surface temperature are *empirically” related to surface air pressure because surface pressure is the measure of the total amount of atmosphere, including GHGs, present. The gravity theory cannot predict from first principles what the temperatures will be at any altitude, like current theory can. I can run a 1D radiative-convective model from an initial start with an isothermal atmosphere at 10 K or 400K and it will eventually produce a realistic atmospheric temperature profile, based upon laboratory-observed radiative properties of gases along with energy conservation considerations. Nikilov has mostly handwaving arguments, not an actual physics-based model.

Reply to  TA
August 7, 2017 1:24 pm

Roy, I read your post, and I must say I am not impressed. I think you are wanting to describe normal turbulence in a chaotic system. The real question is about how much will our added CO2 warm the earth, ie, the surface, where we live. Their approach says next to no warming. The climate models all failed to work on other planets, as well as here on earth. Their approach works, to a high level of precision. I think everyone needs to have an open mind and take a second look.
As for deriving formulas from basic principles, I will bet that if a Trump administration offered multiple fat physics grants to budding young physicists, that would be resolved in short order.
I still say this is a Galileo moment, where a simpler answer clears the air. We even have the Pope lined up for round two!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  TA
August 7, 2017 3:35 pm

Deriving the equations from first principles ought to be the second item on the list after observation for anyone wishing to promote a alternative hypothesis. It shouldn’t require “fat physics grants” for “budding young physicists”.
Scientific notebooks from $17 each:
or, spice things up with Mathcad for $600:
No grant troughers need apply.

Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 11:03 am

I am reading a lot of hand waving as a response. What I want to know is why there is a predictability on other planets of surface temperature with the pressure model and there is none with the climate models. The physics of thermodynamics are well known and the pressure effect is totally consistent.
It’s time to stop carping and refute the facts as presented. Galileo was mocked for his views too.

Richard Bell
Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 12:02 pm

The Earth, unlike all of the other planets, has oceans of water which greatly complicate the rates of local heat exchange.
Galileo was mocked for being wrong about the things that proved the Copernican model. He claimed that the high tide and low tide (only one of each) occurring at noon and midnight proved that the Earth orbited the Sun. A pleasant walk from Rome to Ostia reveals that there are two of each tide and they often occur at times other than noon or midnight. Galileo made stuff up, because he not only wanted to prove heliocentrism, he wanted sole credit for proving heliocentrism, so he used no evidence that he could not claim sole discovery of. Galileo’s telescopes, which Galileo claims were the best telescopes possible, showed distant stars as disks. Disks which showed no parallax. Either the stars were impossibly huge and inconceivably far away (not only was Alpha Centauri 4.3 lightyears away, it was several light-hours in diameter), or the Earth was not moving relative to them.

Reply to  sailboarder
August 7, 2017 4:17 pm

Thanks for the lesson on All the things Galileo got wrong. Seems to me it was what he got right that was important. Ditto the basic thermal effect of air density.. It undermines the belief that adding another .04% CO2 will do anything measurable. It does so with great accuracy, and replicates on other planets. Climate scientists fail both here and there.
That is the Galileo moment for climate science.

Reply to  sailboarder
August 8, 2017 5:28 am

“Climate scientists fail both here and there.”
A good argument to make.
More planets and moons are going to be included in the model eventually as more information is obtained. Let’s see where they fit in the scheme of things.

August 7, 2017 5:37 am

Al Gore: A disrupted water cycle can lead to “rain bombs”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Latitude
August 7, 2017 6:52 am

“Rain bombs”?
Well, as long as they’re not “Hiroshima bombs” they won’t add any warming.

Reply to  Latitude
August 7, 2017 7:31 am

His rain bomb argument is such a stink bomb!

August 7, 2017 5:45 am

It’s shameless misanthropy, abusing the weakest in our society e.g. poor or/and gullible.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
August 7, 2017 12:55 pm

Gore is a shill for the U.N. and the U.N.’s global green economy agenda.
When Gore refers to the billions behind him, perhaps he is referring to the billions pledged to the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI) that is a source of funding for the new green economy agenda?

August 7, 2017 5:58 am

Reality is really starting to look like a hologram of a Sharknado movie.

August 7, 2017 6:45 am

So well stated. Thank you.

August 7, 2017 6:51 am

Meanwhile in Oz the dog ate the homework again-
But not to worry the bellweather men and women of science are busy reconciling it all on our behalf-
What was that salient bit again? Oh yes-
“And yet it would be unwise to think mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense can be cured anytime soon.”

August 7, 2017 7:06 am


EdA the New Yorker
August 7, 2017 7:24 am

“Trap solar heat and keep Earth inhabitable, CO2 is the polar opposite of a ‘dangerous pollutant. ‘”

August 7, 2017 7:29 am

The hypothesis that CO2 is greening the planet is itself based on an artificial model wholly unlike natural events. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How about this: A heat discharging battery (aka ocean) is keeping the planet warm thus allowing flora and fauna its continued march across a more hospitable landscape. With ever more flora and fauna you get more CO2. CO2 rides on the coattails of the ocean recharge/discharge cycle, not the other way around. When the battery of stored heat gets exhausted, cold sets in thus reducing once again flora and fauna advances, thus reducing atmospheric CO2. The CO2 delayed response is recorded in the ice cores. By the way, we are likely also riding the coattails of a benevolent period of discharging ocean warmth.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
August 7, 2017 9:21 am

The greening of the planet is an observation, not a hypothesis. That CO2 is the culprit is a hypothesis, based on what we know about photosynthesis.

Reply to  Curious George
August 7, 2017 11:47 am

There have been greenhouse experiments with enriched (and deprived) CO2 atmospheres that make CO2 greening a confirmed hypothesis. Unlike CO2 heat trapping experiments described by warmists, these are not faked and are very repeatable. Modeling is not necessary, though a good model should confirm the hypothesis as well.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
August 7, 2017 9:06 pm

gbdixon, greenhouse injection of fertilizer confirms that additional fertilizer in an encased greenhouse enhances plant growth. That bears little resemblance to Earth. A warmer wetter world enhances plant growth. Additional plant growth enhances CO2. I can prove it. Here in NE Oregon, a colder dryer spring reduces the garden abundance. A warmer wetter spring increases garden abundance. The extra green increases insects. The insects increase CO2. When the garden dies down, it results in further increased decaying matter which in turn increases CO2. This is so simple a child can understand it.

August 7, 2017 8:12 am

The logic in this artical is illogical and shows a lack of basic scientific understanding at the grade 7 level. Nature has delicate balances and concentrations. Of course CO2 is important to plant growth and photosynthesis providing oxygen as a byproduct. Without interference CO2 and O2 will have a sustainable balance and concentration in ppm of both in air. However when that balance is disrupted and CO2 levels rise significantly, CO2 being a heat-trapping gas, earth temperatures will go up with domino like consequences. Concentrations of either gas too high or too low have negative consequences. The balance has never been perfect over millenia but the fluctuations have been pendulum like within a small range over centuries. What we have now is accelerated and the range is significantly increased. The science that convinced me is the consistency of results of studies of core samples of polar ice with trapped gas (CO2) from hundreds of years ago to the present. The acceleration over the last 200 years is greater than in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. Educate yourselves because if you just blindly accept an uninformed article such as this one, you are betraying your own intelligence and ability to research, study, think, analyze and formulate your own opinions based on knowledge. Faulty logic can really sway the uninformed.

Richard M
Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 8:57 am

You might want to educate yourself before asking others to do so. There is good evidence that as CO2 increases you get a compensating reduction in high altitude water vapor. This negative feedback counters most of the warming that you might see from CO2.
This view is described in detail by Dr Bill Gray is also backed up by empirical evidence from Gero/Turner 2012.

Reply to  Richard M
August 7, 2017 9:47 am

What you say is true. However the CO2 to O2 balance is disrupted. Increasing CO2 and decreasing water vapor suggests an equation with one side on either side of an equation. If only it were that simple. The interrelationships and interdependencies among factors including the gases but also wind, ocean currents, temperatures, etc. are more like a spider web. Whereas one strand may remain in equilibrium by compensating, the effect on neighboring strands are affected. I was a denier too but while three years of study of tough slugging scientific studies does not make me an expert, I have come to the conclusion that most arguments focus on a single equation-like relationship and do not take into account the complexity of related factors. Denying the evidence from studies from tens of diverse nations with all types of political systems and universities from around the globe does not mean it does not exist or is invalid.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
August 7, 2017 1:15 pm

Sorry Terry but your response demonstrates you have very little science background. First of all the CO2 to O2 balance is nonsense. It is 400 vs. 209500 ppm. A small change in the amount of CO2 has little effect on the oxygen in the atmosphere.
Notice I stated the water vapor is decreasing at high altitudes, it is increasing at low altitudes. While this placement is important in terms of the GHE, it is only a trivial change overall and should lead to a small increase in rain. Completely beneficial.
Basically, your entire comment is one big appeal to authority in which you admit you don’t understand the issues involved. Guess what? Neither do many of your so called experts. They are just guessing or in some cases telling outright lies. If you want to “believe” these experts (?) without understanding the science, you are doing it based on “faith”. That is fine but don’t come preaching your “gospel” to those of us who do understand many of the issues and KNOW your experts are not nearly as smart as you think they are.

Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 10:45 am

Do you think Al Gore is right, and should be rewarded with Nobel prizes and Oscars? Perhaps the “faulty logic” is yours.
BTW, most readers and commenters here have more than three years of study in science that is not highly biased. You might want to study ”psychoanalytical projection” and well.

Reply to  DCA
August 7, 2017 12:03 pm

Is it scientifically proven that most readers and commentators here have more than three years of study? Where do you get that from and how would you know that? Unproven statements like that are typical to those who do not have a counter argument. And by the way I do think AL Gore is right but I have more faith in his motivation than you do. His motivation is irrelevant to what the science says.Thanks for your comment.

Reply to  DCA
August 7, 2017 1:09 pm

If you had been reading this blog for the last 3 years instead of the highly biased sources you learned the term “denier” from, you would know what I say is accurate. One way to “prove” that is to have you read it for three years or so to correct your previous “three year study”. I have been reading this blog for 9 years and it took me less than 3 years to see that and I have a lot more than 3 years in scientific study.
You obviously think Al Gore has “scientifically proven” the “earth temperatures will go up with domino like consequences” so feel free to provide the “scientific proof” instead of the “faith in his motivation”. So far you’ve only used logical fallacies i.e. “fault logic” with ad hominem (denier), appeal to authority, and ambiguity to make your argument.
I must admit though you sure have the Al Gore and SS kids talking points down pretty good with your “what the science says” comment and thinking there is such a thing as “scientific proof”.

Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 10:58 am

You are buying way too hard into the ice core data. This data is really a proxy even though it seems like it is not. The proxy is only good for comparing against itself, trends, not comparing against current measurements.
And worse, you can’t really even compare what comes out of ice cores at the level of the last few thousand years to the last hundred thousand years. The gases in the cores become pretty well mixed. When I looked into this in detail and read papers how they try to account for it, it becomes less of a factor for current climate discussions.
Based on that research, I ignore any ice core data past year 0-ish, (which is actually way too recent, just convenient) and never even try to believe that I can take the data we have before that and directly compare it to the measurements we take today.
I really wish we had a better proxy because it would be good to know. As it sits I don’t think there is any evidence to think that we can tell what the real measurements were outside of recent history. The granularity of everything we have is very low.

Reply to  ckb42
August 7, 2017 11:46 am

Your saying that you ignore the data says it all. With all due respect, the studies are too consistent from scientific communities all over the world to be a conspiracy as many suggest. But believe what you wish. I put my trust in the science rather than in the hope that climate change largely caused by human behavior is a hoax. I respect others’ opinions as I do yours however opinion needs to be based on something other than hope that the data is wrong.

Richard Bell
Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 12:17 pm

The level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is not balanced. Although, volcanic eruptions can add new carbon dioxide, the formation of calcium carbonate shells by living things permanently sequesters CO2 in the forms of shale, limestone, and other calcium carbonate based sedimentary rock and that CO2 is never released back into the atmosphere, as shown by the long term downward trend in CO2 from tens of thousands of ppm in the early geologic eras to the few hundred ppm of more recent times.
It may be possible for geologic forces to subduct calcium carbonate rock into the mantle to allow for eventual re-admission to the atmosphere through volcanism, but there is no evidence of this happening at any measurable scale.

Reply to  Richard Bell
August 7, 2017 1:13 pm

He will next ask if that is “scientifically proven” as Al Gore has done.

Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 1:23 pm

“CO2 and O2 will have a sustainable balance and concentration in ppm ” Where has this been “scientifically proven” ?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 3:44 pm

So Terry, when atmospheric CO2 was at 7,000 ppm or so around 400 million years ago, what exactly were the “domino like consequences”?

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 8, 2017 12:43 am

And which was the true balance? The need for “balance” is an acute human condition.

Reply to  Terry
August 7, 2017 5:55 pm

“Without interference CO2 and O2 will have a sustainable balance and concentration in ppm of both in air. However when that balance is disrupted and CO2 levels rise significantly, CO2 being a heat-trapping gas, earth temperatures will go up with domino like consequences.”
What should it be then Terry? How many parts per million and what particular era do all the experts from ‘the evidence from studies from tens of diverse nations with all types of political systems and universities from around the globe’ base it upon and why? Can you point it out to me so I can see the light and don’t continue to be a denier?

August 7, 2017 10:20 am

“India is building numerous coal power plants to electrify its vast regions”
India is cancelling new coal plants, banning new applications to build coal plants, has excess capacity at its current coal plants and most importantly is well on its way toward its target of building 175GW capacity of solar and wind by 2022. (new solar is now cheaper than new coal in India)

Reply to  Griff
August 7, 2017 11:08 am

Link please!

Reply to  ClimateOtter
August 7, 2017 11:33 am


Reply to  Griff
August 8, 2017 12:48 am

now all they need is to kick all the farmers off the land to build more solar.

Truman ross
August 7, 2017 10:26 am

Al poor Gore needs to ride a bike, walk to his mail box which is probably three miles from his house in a gated community, and then walk to a grocery store, walk back to his house, swim 100 laps in his Olympic sized pool, and only then will we BEGIN to believe that he is not a raving mad hypocrit

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Truman ross
August 7, 2017 3:46 pm

There isn’t enough magnanimity in the world to give the Goricle the benefit of the doubt.

August 8, 2017 9:52 am

Gore could add even more promotional face time if he would be the first to ride in the new pilotless planes.

South River Independent
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 8, 2017 10:57 am

Nothing can go wrong. . .can go wrong. . .can go wrong. . .

August 9, 2017 7:39 am
%d bloggers like this: