Carbon Output Should Be Near Zero, Or We’ll All Die!

I wonder how many trees are killed and how much CO2 the Washington Post puts out daily in order to bring us such doom and gloom, the world is going to end type stories such as this

The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

I’m assuming they mean that the output has to be a net zero, since it would require all life on Earth to be dead to stop CO2 output completely. Anyhow, yeah, it would be hard, especially since all the chicken little climahysterics refuse to live the life they advocate for everyone else. Why would I change my life when they won’t change theirs?

“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”


The danger in that is that the climate of the Earth is an extremely complicated and dynamic system, which is certainly not understood fully by any scientist. There are too many parts too it, and not understanding how they all operate, then screwing with it, is rather dangerous, particularly since we have had that whopping 1.4 degree F or so rise since the end of the Little Ice Age. You remember the LIA, right? It was cold. It was preceded by a very warm period. But, somehow, the chicken littles say it can only be Man’s fault (why can’t it be Woman’s fault?).

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings “make it clear we must act now to address global warming.”

“It won’t be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling,” she said. “It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves.”

Why? They should be able to live with themselves just fine, as all the other climahypocrites do. Like Boxer does. It appears as if Boxer is turning this in to some sort of moral issue, which is really ironic due to her massive support for abortion on demand.

Caught in all the consensus, hysterical rhetoric, and computer models, is the reality that an uptick in CO2 in the atmosphere followsan uptick in temperature, rather then the reverse. And consensus is not science. And, again, the fact that most of the chicken littles do not follow their own talking points. So, why should the rest of us believe what they are peddling?

That is not to say that we should not find alternative, and cleaner, energy sources, as well as do what we can to protect the environment. I am all for that. I am all for getting polluters to stop. I am also heavily in favor of divorcing climate change from all the true environmental issues, and letting them stand on their own importance.

Dave Shuler (Outside The Beltway and The Glittering Eye) says “we are all doomed” (as the WP puts it), and, how serious are the chicken littles?

McQ at Q and Ohas a great breaking down of the gasses and costs, providing something the chicken littles do not. Facts.

Tigerhawk: Of course, reducing carbon emissions nearly to zero would also constitute a global catastrophe, so if these guys are right we are actually completely and unavoidably screwed.

A Blog For All and Blue Crab Boulevard suggest the chicken littles hold their breath. Heh!

See more at Memeorandum.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Carbon Output Should Be Near Zero, Or We’ll All Die!”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Teach you are right. We are all going to die.
    What kind of a planet do you want to leave behind ?

  2. Dave Schuler says:

    Dave Shuler (Outside The Beltway and The Glittering Eye) says we are doomed

    Not exactly. I’m saying that that’s what The Washington Post is saying.

  3. Beg pardon. I meant it more in terms of a sarcastic “we’re dooooooommmmmmed” way.

  4. John, I want to leave a clean planet, as much as we can. Let’s deal with real environmental threats such as ocean pollution, the real pollutants that come from auto exausts, the loss of biodiversity, clearcutting, etc, before we worry about silly CO2 and a wopping 1.4 degree uptick occuring after hundreds of years of cooler weather.

  5. Stix says:

    Ah yes, the we are all doomed memo that all the Disciples of the New Church of Manbearpig bring out. You know that we are all doomed and the planet will die in a burning ring of fire if we don’t stop breathing and kill all plants that use photosynthesis to create the air we breathe. CO2 is not a pollutant and is the basic building block of life on Earth

    It reminds me of the great Gloom and Doom memo here in the Midwest,the Mississippi is going to flood during the spring. But that happens every year after the snows melt, but they need to sensationalize it to make it better for the MSM.

    I agree we need to rid ourselves of pollutants and treat our environment with care and clean it up. But to go to the extremes of the Environmental Wackos is beyond the pale. Do they realize that without CO2 we would not be here and we would not have food to feed the world. What a bunch of maroons.

  6. GM Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says:

    Does that mean I have to stop breathing?
    Boy what a bunch of basket cases.
    I’ll drive my Chevy half-ton with a 350 V-8 and enjoy the daylights out of it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11377 access attempts in the last 7 days.