Carbon dioxide is continually referred to as a “poison” or a “toxin” which must inevitably be irreversibly damaging the Earth. The case is actually the opposite of this. Now, there are toxins — actual poisons that are products or (usually) byproducts of human activities on the Earth. (We’ll ignore natural toxins.) But civilized societies are steadily reducing the toxic portion of human output; the changes in air and water quality over the past century in America speak to this. They are having to exaggerate the effects of remaining toxins to keep the scare up. But CO2 is different. We produce a lot of it, and it is increasing in the atmosphere in part because of human output. […]
This started out as a short comment in a friend’s blog, but got out of control.
It is easy to get timescales mixed up, and associate the gradual movement of continents with the rise of sea levels.
Continental drift takes place over tens of millions of years. It is a very slow-moving process. the various […]
How big of a threat is global warming? A conversation on another skeptic site, with a previous visitor here, had me thinking about it:
Mogur commented on a previous post to the effect that this year’s increase in Arctic ice is not necessarily a refutation of global warming.
I’d agree: One year of uptrend in ice, even a few as we’ve now seen, is not even particularly indicative, let alone conclusive. But I do see evidence that there is […]
Ocean acidification is a bugaboo that has been flogged recently since the pause made warming rather a non-issue.
They recently adjusted temperatures to “fix” the pause, but have not been able to adjust the global satellite temperature record, so the pause is still there. And people are growing weary of having every single bit of […]
The “Paris Agreement” is the flimsiest of hoped-for agreements that might be reached years in the future for goals and performance that have not been even set, let alone agreed to. It has no enforcement mechanism, but this is no handicap because there is absolutely nothing to enforce. And even this vague set of hopes — it mentions 1.5°C, so it gets cheers from the media — hasn’t even been signed yet. They hope to get signatures by mid-2017, after (of course) many more expensive get-togethers of the Parties. And yet this deal is important. Dangerously so… […]
The new Paris climate deal is out. And it is likely to become “official.” They are touting that it will be “legally binding” and they expect approval. Why would they expect this? Well, because… […]
The Paris Conference of the Parties is winding down. This was the absolute last chance to save the planet and prevent humans from being utterly extinguished. The politicians and media are telling us so, and governments and activists are paying scientists billions of dollars to tell us so, so it must be true, right? In […]
Chiefio has a post up in which he muses about what name should be used to designate those who are invested in the global warming push. He suggested “global warming theorist.”
I did not quite agree, and wrote the following in response:
Except from a conversation with a rather vehement and objectionable catastrophist, who was asserting a consensus with AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I replied:
Incidentally, I agree with AGW. Specifically, in answer to the questions posed on the famous survey, that it has warmed in recent decades and that humans have contributed some non-zero amount to […]