Eight billion humans living on the Earth breathe out two pounds of carbon dioxide every day, yet Net Zero fanatics have long argued that this gas of all planetary life is a pollutant. Despite all the observable evidence going back at least 600 million years, the activists link increasing levels of the gas to runaway high temperatures and concoct a politically-inspired story that suggests that humans control a chaotic and non-linear climate. Their computer models tell them so, particularly when provided with all the correct data. One vital cornerstone of all this nonsense is an ‘Endangerment Finding’ from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in 2009 termed CO2 a ‘pollutant’ of something termed clean air. The pollution scare has been influential around the world and has been used to justify countless regulations and bans in the interest of the Net Zero fantasy. Such is the totemic nature of this finding it is perhaps not surprising that it hasn’t taken long for the Trump Administration to strike at the heart of the Green Blob with the new head of the EPA reported to be urging the White House to rescind the ruling.
Back in 2007, the EPA charged that greenhouse gases “endangered both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations”. It said that emissions from motor vehicles contributed to greenhouse gas “air pollution” that endangered public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. The science was suspect then, it is even more dodgy now.
As it did with medical matters over Covid, so with Net Zero, the Daily Sceptic has always taken a keen and investigative interest in the underlying science backing any major political course of action. It is obvious that any acceptance that human-caused CO2 does not control the climate thermostat would lead to the entire Net Zero edifice, cherished particularly by control freaks on the Left, falling like a House of Cards. As with Covid, the need to keep populations onside with the scare means that every effort is taken in the mainstream to shut down debate.
Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas that has warming properties in the atmosphere. But it has long been known that these properties diminish with higher atmospheric volumes, an observation that explains why runaway global temperatures have not been recorded in the past when levels were over 10 times higher. Plants have evolved to thrive in CO2 amounts three times higher than current denuded levels. There is still widespread speculation as to the rate of global temperature increase that will occur if CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, with estimates ranging from a ‘saturated’ low around 0.5°C to the alarming claims of 10°C or more. Many computer models are deliberately fed with ‘pathways’ that assume very high future temperature rises, all the better to produce clickbait stories of imaginary climate ‘tipping’ points.
Because nobody knows what the correct figure is, although much of the evidence points to lower, even negligible amounts, it is reasonable to state that the hypothesis (opinion) that humans control significant climate change by releasing CO2 is unproven without a single science paper to validate the claim. It is for this reason that political activists invented the lie that there is an overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic warming and the science is hereby ‘settled’. Not only was it deemed settled, but any further discussion risked comparison with denying the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Every now and then some idiot can be relied on to suggest the deniers should be sent to jail. As a result the activists, aided by mainstream media, have been able to promote the fantastical notion that the world can do without hydrocarbons and rely instead on breezes and sunbeams backed by controls and lifestyles more suited to a pre-industrial, less civilised age.
Such is the essential silliness behind Net Zero that, coupled with a growing realisation that much of the ‘settled’ science is based on models and junk data, it is unsurprising that it is unravelling so fast in the United States and elsewhere. Unlike Trump 1.0, the latest incarnation of the Donald has been long in the planning. The entire woke agenda including Net Zero has been struck hard and with devastating precision. The EPA endangerment finding is the “holy grail” of the climate agenda, noted Marc Morano of Climate Depot. “If you want to permanently cripple the United States climate agenda you have to go at the heart of it”, he wrote. “This is the heart of it.”
There is still some way to go to remove the CO2 endangerment finding since it is tied into the Clean Air Act. Changes of the law, in addition to executive action, might be needed to protect against the inevitable lawsuits funded by the almost unlimited amounts of money provided by the still powerful Green Blob. However, hearings in a Republican Congress could help clear the air and define the actual ‘danger’ that human-caused CO2 presents. The suggestion that CO2 is a risk is ubiquitous in the original EPA finding but considerably more scientific information is now available on the actual ‘risk’ posed by the gas. It is getting more difficult to argue that CO2 is a clear and present danger when a little extra warmth has saved lives and increased food supplies, while the gas itself has boosted global leaf growth by up to 15% in recent years. Activists will no doubt claim that there is now more extreme weather such as hurricanes, flooding, droughts and wildfires, a line of argument that might be hampered by an almost total lack of evidence to back up their contentions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The question is not so much whether greenhouse gases in general and at a global level “endanger[] both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations”.
The question is whether US emissions of these gases do that for future generations of Americans.. Because all the EPA can regulate are US emissions, and the only welfare they are supposed to be safeguarding is Americans’ welfare.
The answer is obviously no and no. Even were America the nation and all its emissions to vanish tomorrow this would make little material difference to global emissions, and none to North American weather or temperatures.
People need to stop proposing local policies in the name of the planet, when they can have no effect on the planet. Its like Tuvalu proposing to lower its emissions because emissions in general contribute to rising sea levels in general. Maybe they do, but reducting Tuvalu’s emissions makes no difference either way.
Ed, are you listening? Please wake up!
The question is, is there really anything that is a greenhouse gas?
I’ve been in a greenhouse. I’ve been outside. Outside is not the same as inside a greenhouse.
The only time H20 and CO2 are greenhouse gasses is within a greenhouse.
Maybe this will get the discussion going. From the Climate Alarmists, I mean. Skeptics have been discussing this all along. Climate Alarmists have been avoiding this discussion.
Red Team/Blue Team
And of course, the Leftwing Billionaires will be pumping money into lawsuits of every kind, trying to continue to demonize CO2..
This ought to be fun! 🙂
It does not much matter what comments are made by lay people regarding CO2 warming the Earth surface.
It is best to heed the analyses by scientists, who claim CO2 warming has been less than 0.5 C thus far. Any other warming is due to other factors.
Radiation Transport in Clouds
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-2025-vWijngaarden-Happer.pdf
By Drs. van Wijngaarden and Happer
The article details just how insignificant CO2 is as a factor in climate change, revealing that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 ppm to 800 ppm – a 100% increase – hypothetically reduces radiative heat loss to space by just 1%.
It would take many decades to achieve such a ppm increase, plus there are not enough fossil fuels left over to make it happen.
Because CO2 has increased by only 50% since 1850 (280 ppm to 420 ppm), the CO2 total greenhouse effect regarding reducing upward IR radiation has thus far been in the range of tenths of a percentage point.
Such a small change in upward IR radiation, over 175 years, is not even detectable amid the noise of outgoing radiation measurement.
For example, the measured upward IR radiation has an error of about 33 W/m²
This negligible CO2 greenhouse effect is a calculated value for an atmosphere that is perpetually cloud-free.
As clouds are present 60 to 70% of the time, this clear-sky-only condition only occurs in an imaginary world – an atmosphere that doesn’t exist.
Compared to the CO2 role, the greenhouse effect of clouds is tens of times more influential.
To cool the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover needs to increase by only a few percent.
During cloudy skies, there is warming, due to downward IR radiation from cloud bottoms at about 340 W/m^2
During clear skies, there is about 30% less warming, due to upward IR radiation at about 260 W/m^2, primarily from the thermal IR radiation of water vapor and CO2
.
If cloud cover increases from 60 to 65%, the upward IR radiation (cooling) from earth surface decreases by (0.40 – 0.35) x 260 = 13 W/m^2, and downward IR radiation (warming) from cloud bottoms increases by (0.65 – 0.60) x 340 = 17 W/m^2, for a net warming increase of about 30 W/m^2
Because cloud cover changes of much more than 1% routinely occur, such as during El Ninos, over time-scales of a few years, the role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect is insignificant, if not irrelevant.
Cloud cover changes are the only plausible explanation for most of the modest “secular” warming of the past two centuries. Together with ocean current fluctuations (see below URLs), cloud cover changes are also the only physical mechanism that could account for fluctuating temperature changes with time scales of a few years.
Based on fundamental physics, one should expect some warming from increasing CO2. But this warming will be too small to account for what has been observed.
Cloud cover changes provide the only rational explanation that does not violate basic physics.
The only reason the IPCC has made CO2 its miracle mascot is to tie it to fossil fuels which Europe does not have enough of.
The woke Euro elites went hog-wild for wind and solar, but at about 30% W/S on the grid, various costs increase exponentially.
The W/S variable output, or too-little output, or too-much output, creates operational difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and expensive to counteract, as proven by the UK for the past 5 years, and by Germany for the past 10 years.
Both countries have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDP, the highest electricity prices in Europe, and stagnant real wages.
Their angry native populations are further burdened by the Euro elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited poor, uneducated, inexperienced folks from all over, a chaotic burden the native populations never voted for.
.
After spending all that money, while uglifying the countryside, killing fisheries, tourism, and view sheds, etc., the Euro elites are richer and living in posh places, but the climate is not any different than 30 years ago.
.
Here in New England, we are freezing our butts off. Snow everywhere.
In Detroit, there was flooding up to car windows in the streets, and then it froze!
Such flooding is due to not spending on flood-prevention measures for decades.
.
The woke Euro elites tried to lure the US into going down the wind/solar/battery black hole, and make $billions in the process. That scam did not work out. The European wind industry is in shambles
.
The US was spared by Trump from the offshore W/S evils of the Democrat leftist cabal, that used Biden as a Marionette.
Trump declared a National Energy Emergency, and put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and cut their licenses and subsidies, and put their environmental impact under proper scrutiny.
.
Europe was using the IPCC-invented, global-warming/climate-change/CO2-is-evil hoax, so the US would also deliver electricity to users at high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is-a-dog-eat-dog-business
.
When will woke Euro elites finally admit, CO2 is a good gas, absolutely essential to grow more flora and fauna, and increase crop yields to feed hungry people?
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-has-a-very-minor-role-in-the-atmosphere
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
We need a Pro-life, Pro-CO2 Coalition
Without CO2 there would be no flora and fauna, there would be no life on earth
Net Zero by 2050 is a suicide pact conjured up by climate zealots who are leading the IPCC, and claim they own the science.
.
They deny the Little Ice Age, support fraudulent computer temperature projections, and are using the USAID-subsidized Corporate Media to cow/control/brainwash the people, already for 35 years
CO2 is a trace, weak absorber of a small fraction of the available low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures
Fossil fuels are good, because they make possible our civilizations, plus they provide extra CO2 to increase crop yields to feed hungry people
This is completely deranged in its claims about the supposed European origins of the global warming movement..
Global warming agitation was and is primarily US based. Look up James Hansen and Michael Mann.
If the US drops out of COP and IPCC, it will be over.
Like most woke ideas, the thing started in the US and then spread in the English speaking countries and Germany. Another example of this route of transmission of woke ideas was when people in the UK (including the present Prime Minister) started publicly kneeling on account of the death of George Floyd.
No, Black Lives Matter was not invented in Europe and then foisted on the US, either!
The Club of Rome is one of the earliest activists groups behind this.
SN4 – I’m old enough to remember the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the brief rise of Gorbachev in the then fledgling Environmental Movement post-collapse. (See: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-27-wr-27912-story.html). His humanist view of World Environmentalism neatly melded communistic/Soviet ideas of the Perfect Society, and fed into the UN we see today. Control of society through calculating the carbon dioxide release potential of fuels was a convenient method for societal control. Add into the mix, the USD $$$ from USAID to media and the institutions, and the message to the masses has been controlled for decades. Uri Bezmenov was correct regarding quite a few of his observations.
Regards,
MCR
All true with no debate.
The Club of Rome met in the 50s and 60s to plan for a One World Order and selected environmentalism as the “cause” that would lead to it.
In the 1960s, The Population Bomb was published, adding a bit of momentum.
There are a lot of other minutia as well.
At the end of WWII, our global opponents saw the USA as the dominant power. We controlled over 50% of the global economy and had a military that likely could have taken on all other countries combined and win.
It was obvious that a united American society was indominable.
It is obvious to me that our opponents realized they could not go toe to toe with us. So they devised long term goals. Divide Americans and trash the US economy. Now, today, look at all the divisive issues and feed into that what this Net Zero insanity is doing to the US (and most western) economy. If my speculation is correct, the results obviously demonstrate the strategy worked.
This is not contrary to your information. It is complimentary.
Same wavelength. My interest in all of these myriad issues began shortly after finding WUWT in 2009, also about the time of the EPA Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide emissions. I recall reading my local pulp newspaper, and the constant barrage of climate claptrap about no more snow, boiling seas, etc., etc. I then witnessed a strange local situation that I initially thought was something that wouldn’t effect me personally. My city started to reduce 4 lane roadways down to 2 car lanes with new dedicated bike lanes curbside. After researching the internet to try and figure out why the city planners thought more citizens would ride bikes than drive cars, I came across the ICLEI publications (https://iclei.org/), and delved deeply into the Club of Rome and the then-Agenda 21. And had the ‘Aha!’ moment. It is like a cancer that infects a robust capitalist society and eats it from the inside out. My town is of course listed as an ICLEI member. Also, high-density, Soviet-style apartment buildings have been springing up all over town. For example an old KMart site has been rebuilt with over 1,000 dwelling units! So, carbon dioxide vilification along with 15/30 minute city planning. I’m sure most everyone sees similar actions in thier towns as well. Seems like, in my retirement I may have to become active in local politics….never have been one to do so….
Best regards,
MCR
Ahh… This explains the plethora of bike lanes appearing in Baltimore and why the city is paying any attention to the 400 of 500 (alleged) cyclists demanding them. Baltimore is an ICLEI member.
No people ever voted for this. It all just appears, as part of our indoctrination in wokeness, and DEI
Brussels latched onto wind and solar, because it wanted to be more sovereign, less dependent on fossil fuels, and used CO2 as the evil gas.
Anyone deviating, was billed a heretic
That lasted for about two decades, at which point it became increasingly clear, grids would hit a cost and operational wall at around 30% presence of W/S on the grid.
As an energy systems analyst, I knew that well before 2000, so when Merkel, PhD in Physics, came out with her ENERGIEWENDE, I was totally flabbergasted.
The issue is not who came out first, but who was idiotic enough to go the Merkel way.
Seems way too many people were/are idiotic enough.
CAGW was originated by joint forces of the Club of Rome, Margaret Thatcher and Michael Gorbachev. USA elites, particularly banking, were not much behind. Doom and gloom neo-Malthusian scenarios by the Club of Rome were the foundation and inspiration for de-industrialization agenda. Thatcher’s fight with coal miners was a situational reason why she partially endorsed it. More important, after SU collapse, Russians were not enemies anymore, at least temporarily, and both sides were looking for a convenient global enemy to combat together. The West feared reduced military spending, and looked to create an alternative government funded blackhole. CAGW was such an enemy, and also a seemingly lucrative investment opportunity.
We are a carbon based life form. Every carbon atom
in your body was once CO2 in the atmosphere.
Some smugglers swallow diamonds.
Is it safe?
From the article –
“There is still widespread speculation as to the rate of global temperature increase that will occur if CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, with estimates ranging from a ‘saturated’ low around 0.5°C to the alarming claims of 10°C or more”
If anybody feels like it, add 1000 parts per million of CO2 to an open topped container of air. The CO2 will displace the air, being heavier. No temperature rise. Double the CO2, to 2000 ppm. According to some, temperature should rise by 1 C. It doesn’t. The temperature doesn’t change. Do it again and again and again. No temperature rise.
Go the whole hog, if you want – fill the container – 1,000,000 parts per million CO2. Still no temperature rise.
Or wave your hands around, and insist that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!
Or that CO2 is a dangerous, poisonous pollutant.
Michael I agree with your thrust. Here is the result of a CO2 jar experiment which was done by Anthony Watts.
The mass of CO2 needs to be accounted for.
Michael, you are missing a number of heat transfer issues with your “thought experiment” apparatus. What you should do is put a source of IR to irradiate your IR transparent container, and have an IR camera on the opposite side. As well, put a bunch of temperature sensors on the internal and external surfaces of your container. You will find when irradiated by IR of say, the same spectrum as sunlight, that the camera shows more IR is absorbed as it passes through the increased CO2, although you will have some difficulty getting a long enough beam length compared to the atmosphere.
You will also find that the internal and external surfaces of your container DO increase in temperature by a some small amount (which will be on the very verge of your temperature sensors to detect without resorting to statistical methods). This will cause the additional CO2 heating to be rapidly conducted and convected into the air in your laboratory, since we are only taking about an effect of a couple or four watts per square meter (the wafting natural convection currents will drive your container surface temperature sensors erratically, even from you just walking past your container).
In the end, you will have discovered that calculated CO2 warming is much attenuated by convection effects, and be conceptually far ahead of most CliSci Ph.D students.
BTW many science fair type experiments have been done. None of them that I have ever seen properly calculate the heat gained by the CO2 IR absorption, nor the rate of heat loss by the container by convection to its surroundings with instrumentation that would be suitable for the job. Most of them use an IR absorptive container of inconsistent thickness that they place an also carelessly inconsistent distance from their heat source. These are recipes for showing them what they want to find…half the time.
I think you have unnecessarily complicated his thought experiment. You say “your IR transparent container” he never mentioned what kind of container.
He is just showing that a kmol of air needs 29,000 J to increase 1 degree and a kmol of CO2 needs 36,900 J. So as you swap out air for CO2 but have the same energy in put the temperature will not increase. A mix of half and half needs about 33,000 J.
Your specific heat capacities seem to be reversed.
Straight outta GROK.
I stand corrected
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Isobaric (Cp) 14.7 psia, 20 C
air 1.01 kJ/kgK
CO2 0.844 kJ/kgK
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html
CO2 44.010 g/mol => Cp = 37.14 kJ/kmol K
air 28.9647 g/mol => Cp = 29.25 kJ/kmol K
(air with 330 ppm CO2, no H2O)
I omitted the mass per mole in my initial estimates.
There are colleges and universities that offer PhDs in “Climate Science?”
Not one have I found in extensive searches.
As to your science fair experiments, you are correct. Those same points apply to the Tyndall experiments. Note: His detector was a thermal pile with one end heated with steam.
Sparta, just a not – “His detector was a thermal pile with one end heated with”
Nope. Read his experiment details again. Interesting thing – Tyndall’s “primitive” set up could detect changes of around 0.00002 C. or so.
Unbelievable? Later catalogues of scientific apparatus claimed much better resolution, but they may have been exaggerating.
To deflect an uncalibrated needle? I think not.
“Michael, you are missing a number of heat transfer issues with your “thought experiment” apparatus”
It’s not a thought experiment. On occasion, both I and other people have performed the experiment – demonstrating the ability of heavier CO2 to displace air. I wouldn’t be surprised if you haven’t done something similar at some time.
On occasion, there was a thermometer in situ when a fish tank was borrowed. No temperature increase was noted as the air was replaced with added CO2, even when 100% replacement was reached.
Have you obtained different results? I find that hard to believe.
Story tip
New Study Casts Doubt On The Accuracy And Reliability Of The Modern And Paleo CO2 Record
Reconstructed ice core CO2 values and modern CO2 and CH4 measurements do not support the narrative that human emissions are driving changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Waiting for RG 😀
CO2 pollution claim.
From a bog standard MSDS for Carbon dioxide (Carbonic Anhydride, R744 etc)
Eye contact : No known significant effects or critical hazards
Inhalation : No known significant effects or critical hazards.
Skin contact : No known significant effects or critical hazards
Yes, it’s a real killer, this one. /sarc
If you take the Rumsfeld proposition – known knowns etc etc – it is clear there are huge gaps in what we know, that’s why things never add up and you hear stuff like:
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? … The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climate gate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009
Claiming [wholly mythical] pollution arises from emissions of the bedrock of life is an attempt to put all that we are under the control of the ruling elites.
Carbon based lifeform declares war on Carbon. One cannot make this stuff up, but Nature (the magazine) does its level best to make some sense of it. It’s location, location, location…
“Design with the natural cycle in mind to ensure that carbon ends up in the right places
‘Low carbon’, ‘zero carbon’, ‘decarbonization’, ‘negative carbon’, ‘neutral carbon’, even ‘a war on carbon’ — all are part of the discourse. If we can reduce our carbon emissions, and shrink our carbon footprint, the thinking goes, we can bring down the carbon enemy.
…
Ecologist and soil scientist Christine Jones, founder of the Amazing Carbon Project, describes the “photosynthetic bridge” between atmospheric carbon and liquid carbon, and the “microbial bridge” between plants and biologically active, carbon-rich soils as twin cornerstones of landscape health and climate restoration.
https://www.nature.com/articles/539349a
This soil scientist appears to think she knows even the unknown unknowns.
Climate restoration? Tell this one to any passing celestial body or volcano.
“Climate restoration is the climate change goal and associated actions to restore CO2 to levels humans have actually survived long-term, below 300 ppm. This would restore the Earth system generally to a safe state, for the well-being of future generations of humanity and nature. – Wikinausea
Notions of climate restoration or even a perfect utopian climate stasis – ie unchanging – are utter nonsense. But that’s where they are.
But my favourite in that: “levels humans have actually survived”. Damn.
I like your reference to R744!
“R744 is the chemical reference for carbon dioxide (CO2) used as refrigerant. It is a naturally occurring substance that can be applied as a working fluid in different heating and cooling applications, due to its excellent heat transfer properties and its high volumetric cooling capacity.”
https://archive.r744.com/knowledge/faq
So… must we understand those human emissions of CO2 as harmful in respect to “warming”? No, not when you consider the heat engine nature of the general circulation and of convective weather. What if incremental CO2 simply acts as a bit of a booster for energy transfer into and out of the atmospheric working fluid by its radiative properties? Not making this up.
In the brewing trade, at least when I worked in it, the cheapest refrigerant was alcohol/water by a country mile Methanol, that is.
CO2 emissions… In quality control the beer batch (gyle) must have a CO2 content within a range (eg 2.20 to 2.40 vols) Too high and it would be purged with Nitrogen). Too low it would be gassed up, as we used to say.
I’m surprised that the greens have overlooked brewing. It is an hugely CO2 driven thing
I think the answer is that it’s pretty easy to make the connection between the CO2 generated and its feedstock source being sustainable. They couldn’t sell that one, even to the more stupid among their tribe. More surprising I think, is that they can when it comes to cattle, pigs and chickens. Many leaders of countries even have bought into that errmmm hogwash. These days I’ve noticed that challenging that narrative generally elicits a response like “Ooooh look over there, a shiny bag of fertilizer”.
People have always looked to the past golden age that never existed.
We had a lot more agency back in the 70s, for example. Now, we have the thought police.
I’m well aware of attempts to beat down any “free thinker” in my work as a consulting forester in Wokeachusetts. For daring to challenge their policies, 3 times they used the license board to try busting me. All 3 times they failed. Now they just ignore me as I continue to challenge their policies. Essentially, their policy is to minimize all forestry work to “save the planet”- f*cking idiots.
Where would we be without wood products?
Sitting at the computer I look around the room. Wooden tables and chairs, wooden sideboard, upright wooden piano, wooden storage units, wooden bookcases. Every room in the house has something made of wood in it except for the bathroom.
Thanks for the work you try to preserve.
No amount of reasonable discussion seems possible with people whose counter argument runs something like “But too much of anything can kill you!” Never mind that we are discussing trace amounts of an atmospheric gas at 420 ppm compared to acute toxic levels being around 160,000 ppm. They seem incapable of making the distinction. Presenting them with numbers just seems to strengthen the wall they live behind.
H L Menken saw the CO2 “nemesis” for what it is –
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
Fear and anger. If people are afraid and angry, they are not paying attention to facts and reason.
“Every now and then some idiot can be relied on to suggest the deniers should be sent to jail.”
My favorite sentence. Hello Bill Nye (amongst other prominent idiots). Most of them will get away, and with zero accountability, but I suspect there will be some climate criminals who have stolen enough for a jail term to be appropriate when they get DOGEd or otherwise apprehended.
What an excellent summary, although I think the 0.5°C will turn out to be charitable to the charlatans.
One YouTube video shows Nye torching a globe. What an idiot.
“Eight billion humans living on the Earth breathe out two pounds of carbon dioxide every day, yet Net Zero fanatics have long argued that this gas of all planetary life is a pollutant.”
Funny how many of those 8 billion are facing court dates for pollution. Hmmm…. ZERO (or humorously put, NET ZERO).
story tip
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/trump-limits-scientists-work-key-climate-report-critics-say-has-become
Unfortunately it cites “anonymous sources”.
CO2 is a pollutant?
Where are the bans on beer, Coke, Pepsi, Mt. Dew, champaign, sparkling wines, sparkling water, …
And CO2 fire extinguishers? Need to recall all of those.
I think you get the point.
Interesting that they were able to get rid of Halon so quickly, but we still have CO2 fire extinguishers (and the rest).
From article:”Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas that has warming properties in the atmosphere.”
Nah.
As Eric Hoffer pointed out in the early 1950’s, people tend to act in certain stereotypical ways. Mass movements, whether political or religious, will have a great deal of the same patterns of development. While the Nazi party and the Spanish Inquisition obviously had differences, being the subject of either had a great deal of resemblance in practice.
The Salem Witch Trials were stopped by an outside demand for other than “spectral evidence”. Similarly, the Climastrologists can be stopped by rejecting computer models as being conclusive.
The “Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Disruption/Climate Change” psyop was always a fraud, a fraud pushed by the left, the UN the WEF and the CCP designed to line the pockets of the favored and take down capitalism and install a global socialist state.
Spot on.
Fraud financed by banking industry that decided to create artificial investment cycle in green transition and benefit from it. Fraud supported by rightwing politicians who aimed to strip of income geopolitical adversaries rich in hydrocarbon resources. The left also saw their opportunity and jumped on the bandwagon, but the bandwagon would not be moving if not amply financed with the blessing of the right.
Has the endangerment finding been reversed?
Does it matter. The rank and file in the EPA are keeping their heads low. The funding for CO2 abatement has all but stopped. Only projects that are already running will have continued funding.
Undoing all the regulations related to CO2 endangerment will take time. But no one to police and no money to incentivise means it is all but dead.