‘Reasonable’ Concessions to Climate Hysteria Lack Reason
First, there is no climate emergency. Claims to the contrary are based on exaggerations of carbon dioxide’s warming effect and computer models that have proven unreliable.
As Republicans settle into the leadership of the new House of Representatives, we are hoping for clearer congressional thinking about the climate issue.
However, there is work to do on the Conservative Climate Caucus.
“Republicans have solutions to reduce world emissions while providing affordable, reliable, and clean energy to our allies across the globe,” said Rep. John Curtis of Utah, caucus chairman, in a news release last month. We infer that carbon dioxide are the emissions of concern because they are most often cited by alarmists as a climate wrecker.
Rep. Curtis’s assumption that there is a need to decrease CO2 emissions is a delusion divorced from reality and unsubstantiated by science.
This absurdity regularly is perpetuated by people wanting to sound reasonable in an atmosphere of hysteria and political chicanery.
Such persons of “reason” reliably promote an “all-the-above” energy strategy. And right on cue, in the fifth paragraph of the Conservative Climate Caucus news release is Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona saying:
“House Republicans have been hard at work to support all-of-the-above energy solutions without sacrificing our energy security, affordability, and reliability.
I am pleased to be joining my colleagues … to demonstrate to the world that we have common sense solutions.”
It is the quintessential statement of reasonableness. It also is devoid of critical thinking, as well as of common sense, which, to her credit, the member of Congress seems to value.
We do not mean to pick on Rep. Lesko. She is merely an example. Neither are we impugning her intelligence or intentions. Plenty of smart people with good intent similarly stumble only to find themselves in an awkward search of a solution for a nonexistent problem.
In reference to energy, the “all-the-above” pitch grants equal standing to numerous sources: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass and so forth. Moreover, it assumes that the burning of ‘fossil fuels’ must be balanced with the use of wind and solar to mitigate the atmospheric warming of carbon dioxide.
Both are light-years from the truth. Energy sources are not equal, and carbon dioxide poses no threat to the planet.
Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, has coauthored a paper that shows that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is limited to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum and cannot cause dangerous heating of the planet.
He says:
“Carbon dioxide is completely natural. Plants need it to grow. We all breathe out about two pounds of it every day.
When people say that we need to remove carbon dioxide from the air, I can’t imagine what they are thinking because today there is not enough carbon dioxide compared to what plants would prefer.
We are living in a time of a carbon dioxide famine in the context of geological history. We need more of it not less.
“The demonization of carbon dioxide is absurd. Widely accepted data, such as those from Antarctic ice cores, show that over geologic time almost never have carbon dioxide levels been as low as today.
Over most of Earth’s history, levels have been four or five times what they are now.”
As for the comparative value of energy sources, an analysis by CO2 Coalition member Dr. Indur Goklany finds that coal, oil and natural gas are the most beneficial based on their efficiencies and on the salutary effects of their emissions of carbon dioxide. These fuels have fostered unprecedented prosperity and human health.
Their CO2 emissions have contributed to an overall greening of Earth and record crop harvests.
The green lobby’s promotion of subsidies for wind and solar is exactly backward. Reason would dictate that ‘fossil fuels’ — along with nuclear power — be favored because of their unmatched effectiveness in sustaining human life, although we prefer free markets over government picking winners and losers.
We understand the desire to be “even-handed” or to “reach across the aisle.”
However, conceding to false claims of a crisis and promoting foolish strategies as “solutions” is dangerous.
It is a packaging of “reasonableness” without regard to reason.
See more here co2coalition.org
Editor’s note: while PSI believes CO2 has zero effect on temperature, we recognise and acknowledge the work of people like Greg Wrightstone as being extremely valuable in the fight against the climate scam.
About the author: Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, former expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom Anderson
| #
Dr. Happer has repeatedly made the points cited in the commentary. Not only is commentary about not news, it is a non sequitur. The commentary says nothing about “CO2’s limited band of [innocuous] EM spectrum ” — supposedly its point.
Dr. Happer apparently referred to CO2’a radiative limitation almost entirely to within 15-micron wavelength, at ~193K, 80 Celslius degrees below freezing. (See J. Wittemann, 2021.) This limitation has been known for many decades and repeatedly confirmed by published experiment. It strikes me that our climate “hen-party/debate” could move off dead center if the participants were more alert, learned, self-critical, or at least aware that unless the physics of climate is correct the stock notions about it are only sound and fury – “not even wrong.”.
One interesting trait of CO2’s radiative limitation to sub-Antarctic temperature is that it may have no effect whatever on ambient air temperature at any altitude, whether at sea-level or stratospheric — that is, from 288K to 217K.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
I always leave a typo for fun. Should be “Not only is the commentary not news, ….” You get the idea.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor,
I know you are receiving my comments because I am given the message that a comment is “awaiting moderation”. I hope you can sleep knowing that the evidence is that someone at PSI is CENSORING my comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
We stopped approving your posts because you have been ignoring e-mails, not answering questions either now you will shortly get another e-mail from the OWNER trying to help you which the admin team has been doing all along, but you don’t work with us in solving a problem because you don’t respond to us.
Suggest that YOU check your e-mail spam folder to see if that is where all of the administrators’ e-mails end up in you have not answered a single e-mail sent to you.
Currently you have 3,991 approved comments the most of anyone here……
Reply
Paul
| #
Yet another good article putting CO2 in proper perspective.
i’ve been a greenie for decades but not the “We are all doomed unless I give up my petrol guzzler and buy a over the top expensive electric car” type. More your “We make way too much pollution, use way too many chemicals without knowing their synergistic reactions, eat way too much unhealthy factory farmed meat and processed empty food, sprayed with who knows what, etc..,” sort of guy.
A question occurred to me some days ago and that is how did the coal beds get to be so thick, especially given that they are well compressed? There must have been extraordinary amounts of growth going on for the thickness to be so large. Follow up question then is: How did it get so thick with the amount of CO2 currently promoted as beneficial, necessary for the earth’s health? And the obvious answer is it didn’t. It only happened in those periods Dr. Happer mentions, so how does the climate alarmist faction think we survived those times?
Reply
Ogmios
| #
Readers may appreciate the video interview below with Professor Zkarkova who you probably already know. Its well above my pay grade but the last twenty minutes are particularly good when she explains the deficiencies in the arguments of the cult followers. Enjoy.
https://rumble.com/v1ugpg9-42-valentina-zharkova-in-next-30-yrs-global-warming-prob.-will-be-last-thin.html
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
(https://principia-scientific.com/natural-philosophy-meteorology-climatology/). If you do not have time to click on this link and read its article, you maybe have not read this article and are only reading comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply