Astrophysicist: The Sun Primarily Controls Climate, Not “Carbon Pollution”

This will make Warmists Very Upset, since they have been indoctrinated to Believe that CO2, what they unscientifically call “carbon”, is the primary “control nob” for ever change in climate and the weather (long term weather is what is known as climate) since 1850 (or 1980, or 1950, or whatever date they want to cherry pick to make their point). They will attack the astrophysicist personal (especially because he is an Israeli), and maybe even trot out anecdotal studies from Cult Of Climastrology friendly interest groups to say “NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!”, and then jump in their fossil fueled vehicles to go to a climate change rally

Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling global warming
According to astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv the sun is the main driver of climate change

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Judith Curry told the U.S. Senate on Jan 16, 2014 that, in light of the extended ‘hiatus’ of 15 years (to 2012) with no appreciable global warming despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide, it is clear that carbon dioxide is not the knob that controls global warming. Natural factors are clearly more influential.

The biggest and most obvious natural factor is the sun. According to Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, solar physics receive only nominal attention in the climate change reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Shaviv will be presenting “Solar forcings and climate change past and present” in Calgary at the Red and White Club on June 2, 2015.

Shaviv’s blog “Sciencebits” explains how he too once assumed carbon dioxide was the ‘knob’ of climate change – but a closer look revealed this was not so. Further astrophysical work demonstrated to him that the sun is the main driver of climate change.

Dr. Shaviv explained to me recently that the “Total Solar Irradiance” is the main solar factor reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), although in fact this so-called ‘solar constant’ is highly variable. The numerous other solar influences are excluded from IPCC reporting – leading to skewed results that, until recently, have given the impression that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity drives climate change. Dr. Shaviv says carbon dioxide is a minor player.

Does CO2 play a small bit in climate? Of course! Other greenhouse gases play their part, particularly methane. However, the Sun is the primary driver, along with natural earth forces.

Warmist freakout in 3…2….1…..

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

38 Responses to “Astrophysicist: The Sun Primarily Controls Climate, Not “Carbon Pollution””

  1. Michael says:

    Actually the only “greenhouse” gas is water vapor. CO2 and NO2 act as a coolant and help draw heat off the Earth. This is all per NASA research in case anyone wants to dispute and claim as OBAMA the king recently stated…. “The science is in and its indisputable”

    But since he is a politician and not an actually scientist, we should all understand that he just wants to end debate because he would lose.

    If we did not have these coolants we would be in big trouble! Between water vapor and the sun, we would be non-inhabitable if it wasn’t for CO2 and NO2. Especially with the recent sun activity and its flares hitting the Earth.

    So the science is in, but it doesn’t fit the agenda of the warmists…

  2. Jeffery says:

    From his seminal paper in 2012 (Advances in Space Research 50: 762–776):

    Abstract

    The 20th century temperature anomaly record is reproduced using an energy balance model, with a diffusive deep ocean. The model takes into account all the standard radiative forcings, and in addition the possibility of a non-thermal solar component. The model is parameterized and then optimized to produce the most likely values for the climate parameters and radiative forcings which reproduce the 20th century global warming. We find that the best fit is obtained with a negligible net feedback. We also show that a non-thermal solar component is necessarily present, indicating that the total solar contribution to the 20th century global warming, of ΔTsolar = 0.27 ± 0.07 °C, is much larger than can be expected from variation in the total solar irradiance alone. However, we also find that the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources, with ΔTman = 0.42 ± 0.11 °C.

    In that paper, his computer model calculated that about 40% of the 20th century temperature increase came from solar effects and 60% from human activities. That is more than a small bit.

    In 2003 (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf) he “re-proposed” Dr. Lindzen’s 1997 hypothesis that cosmic rays controlled the Earth’s climate, concluding:

    Pending further confirmation, one interpretation of the above result could be that the global climate possesses a stabilizing negative feedback. A likely candidate for such a feedback is cloud cover (Lindzen, 1997; Ou, 2001). If so, it would imply that the water cycle is the thermostat of climate dynamics, acting both as a positive (water vapor) and negative(clouds) feedback, with the carbon cycle “piggybacking” on, and being modified by, the water cycle (Nemani et al., 2002; Lovett, 2002; Lee and Veizer, 2003).

    This also included discussions of the Earth passing through the spiral arms of our galaxy as causing climate change.

    Who knows, pending further confirmation, he may have been right in 2003.

    “Now”*, on his blog, he claims that undiscovered changes in the Sun, not CO2, are causing the Earth to warm rapidly. Pending any confirmation, he may be right. All he needs is data and evidence to carry the day. Opinions only carry you so far.

    *It’s unclear when he wrote this blog piece (Mar 12 2015?) and when the news article author interviewed him. (http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK) He wrote a similar piece in 2009.

  3. Jeffery says:

    CO2 and NO2 act as a coolant and help draw heat off the Earth.

    Can you supply citations that support this claim?

  4. Michael says:

    Well the easiest thing to do is find this story.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz3ClbroNS9

    And then you can always actually visit science.nasa.gov or watch their videos like this one.

    http://youtu.be/EEFQHDSYP1I

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    Actually scientifically water vapor in the atmosphere is the largest driver of heat retention.

    Remember earlier conversations about D-0 Events and more specifically Heinrich events.

    Aridity plays a key element in the global cooling of the planet….The AGW crowds points to droughts everywhere as evidence that man is warming the planet.

    It is this Arid climate that is most disconcerting and IMO will lead to another Heinrich event as we are currently experiencing another D-0 event.

    CO2 and NO2 act as a coolant and help draw heat off the Earth.

    Can you supply citations that support this claim?

    Jeffery this is a pretty easy one to answer.

    Nasa themselves answer this question for us.

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/

  6. john says:

    well YES CO2 does act to reflect solar radiation IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE
    However as has been known for 140 years in the lower atmosphere (down where humans live) CO2 rapidly absorbs INFRARED radiation which is most of what the Earth radiates off. Approximately 70% of the total solar irradiance passes through our atmosphere 30% bounces off
    Out of that 70% of TSI about 20% is absorbed by our lower atmosphere (that’s where I live) and the remaining 50% is absorbed by the land and sea and is reradiated off as infrared and guess what? CO2 LOVES infrared energy !!!!
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_02.php
    Infrared ? Ultraviolet? you have to know at least a little bit about what the Sun is sending us
    So Liam et.al YES CO2 does have some cooling effect in the upper atmosphere and that is a good thing the problem is with CO2 in the lower atmosphere absorbing the energy in the infrared spectrum

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    -…the problem is with CO2 in the lower atmosphere absorbing the energy in the infrared spectrum.”

    Comment by john— May 26, 2015 @ 6:17 pm-

    Beyond retarded.

  8. Jl says:

    “Opinions only carry you so far.” Same with predictions.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Here’s the actual NASA link. Note that they are talking about CO2 and NO in the thermosphere, not in the troposphere. You’re mixing apples and elephants.

    Do you really think that CO2 in the atmosphere cools the Earth?

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    IceAgeNow is not NASA.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Michael,

    Thanks for responding. NaturalNews is not NASA. The interpretation by the writer at NaturalNews (and IceAgeNow) is wrong. I didn’t realize that you “skeptics” were exposed to so much nonsense. It’s sad.

  11. Michael says:

    My first link was to natural news which I found after watching the video from NASA.

    I included the link to the video as well. But natural news also had quotes from people in NASA regarding this as well.

    If the carbon absorbs the energy it also rises and releases it. The atmosphere is not stagnant as you are trying to portray it. There is a term called convection.

    You act as if the molecules are unable to transfer from one part of the atmosphere to another. We don’t have to be all technical to understand when you hear air it rises…. And where does the heat go??

    Besides, our carbon levels are one of the lowest of Earths history. Why didn’t the earth melt and all live die when we had 1200ppm of CO2?

    How can this be? We are 3 times lower in carbon levels and technically if we go below 150ppm most of life on Earth will cease to exist. So why are you so hellbent on calling an important part of our Earth a pollutant?? As if aliens brought in the carbon dioxide… Pollution… Hahaha. So plants eat and breathe pollution I guess…

    Maybe you just hate plants…. We could be like the movie interstellar and just eat non flowering plants cause it’s the only thing that grows below 150ppm of CO2.

    Yeah let’s eat grass….. To hell with all the fruits and vegetables.

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    Thanks for responding. NaturalNews is not NASA. The interpretation by the writer at NaturalNews (and IceAgeNow) is wrong. I didn’t realize that you “skeptics” were exposed to so much nonsense. It’s sad.

    Try this one then Jeffery…this is the actual article at NASA…which says the same thing…..

    From the article snip:

    “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    In fact think about it for a minute the entire earth spends its time trying to shed heat back into space.

    For if it didnt the earth would be several thousand degrees warmer then it is now if it was absorbing all this heat from the sun.

  13. liam Thomas says:

    Just noticed I forgot to include the actual link to the NASA generated article.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

  14. Jeffery says:

    Michael and Liam,

    You’re drowning the truth in a flood of words. Do you mean to confuse readers or do you not realize how inconsistent this “factoid” is with the real world?

    Are you both now saying that CO2 in the lower atmosphere is cooling the planet – that when infrared radiation from the Earth interacts with CO2 in the atmosphere that the CO2 re-emits more radiation than it receives and only back out into space???

    So if atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to cool, what is driving the current warming?

    Liam, How does this new “fact” impact your climate model, where the Sun melts some ice, releasing trapped CO2, which now cools rather than warms the Earth?

  15. Jeffery says:

    In fact think about it for a minute the entire earth spends its time trying to shed heat back into space.

    The Earth doesn’t “try” to do anything. Physical laws of the universe determine how energy from the Sun interacts with the Earth and its atmosphere.

    The Earth absorbs radiation from the Sun and warms. The Earth is also re-radiating this energy back into space.

    For if it didn’t the earth would be several thousand degrees warmer then it is now if it was absorbing all this heat from the sun.

    Huh? So if there were no laws of physics the Earth would burn up?

    The Earth absorbs the radiation from the Sun and releases it into space. If the Earth did not release this heat into space – yes – it would be much warmer.

    The “Earth” is not a sentient being making decisions and “trying” to do anything.

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    Liam, How does this new “fact” impact your climate model, where the Sun melts some ice, releasing trapped CO2, which now cools rather than warms the Earth?

    Im wasting my time with you. Your obviously a paid lackey by the AGW movement to troll websites that deny AGW.

    But Ill belly up to the bar.

    Its obvious that you havent been paying attention. Melting Ice flows into the sea. Even small amounts of fresh water run off(comparatively speaking) changes the alkalinity of the water changing the patterns of the current which brings warm waters and temperatures north and prevents the planet from freezing up.

    Heinrich et al.

    Past paleo climatology shows us that these northern warm currents have shut down relatively quickly….over the course of several decades as the planet warmed due to a release of co2…these are called D-0 events which lead to Heinrich events.

    Oh gosh….how on earth could a warming planet cause it to get cold?

    We will never know unless we actually peruse all the facts rather then cherry pick certain facts for our paycheck each week.

  17. Liam Thomas says:

    http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/loma-prietan/story/new-soil-subcommittee-digs-dirt-carbon-farming/3926

    Here ya go Jeffery. The Sierra Club….a progressive organization…..gee even they say that mismanagement of the soil accounts for up to 50 percent of the co2 in the atmosphere.

    Since you probably won’t read it….

    They say….”””While the capacity of soil to reduce climate change has been undervalued, proper soil management could dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. “””

    I can understand why AGW fanatics are so confused when their very own government puts out this garbage on the EPA website.

    “””””The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes ********and land-use changes******* also emit CO2. The main sources of CO2 emissions in the United States are described below.”””””

    They then totally gloss over land use to the exclusion of all else to show us that ALL CO2 entering the atmosphere is the result of fossil fuels…..If this is true where did co2 come from originally since Exxon was not around 3 or 4 billion years ago?

    LOLOL….wow…mind numbing.

  18. Michael says:

    What is the major contributor to warming temperatures on Earth? Is that a real question?

    I hate to state the obvious but the answer is the Sun. And especially recently with a serious increase of solar activity it shouldn’t be a surprise that our weather has become more turbulent.

    I mean, think about how much activity the sun has had and yet whenever storms occur, we blame it on one element that is a natural part of the life cycle of Earth, CO2. It really is silly.

    And I know you want me to cite this paper or that paper, but with so much garbage out there, what difference does it make whether it’s my opinion or an opinion based on a very narrow set of facts and data?

    The reality is that we are very naive when it comes to the world and universe around us and the Earth and life will be around long after we tax and regulate ourselves out of existence.

    I provided one NASA video regarding the benefit of CO2 in the upper atmosphere that prevented us from being wiped out by it’s dangerous flares and you are stuck on CO2 is a pollutant mantra and dangerous to all life on this planet.

    But if that were true, how can you explain our past?? Most of the Earth’s history (with life) has had much higher ppm of CO2 than today. Yes, our ppm of CO2 is rising slowly…. we are almost at 400ppm. And temps are rising….. and the basic thought is that well that is proof that CO2 is causing the rise of temperature. But that may not be true.

    One serious question is does temperature follow CO2 or does CO2 follow temperature. We know that the ocean is the biggest contributor to absorption and releasing of CO2. If in fact CO2 follows temperature, this would make sense, since as the ocean is heated, you would expect CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Thus temperature and CO2 are linked… but not necessarily in a negative way as the warmists would suggest but rather in a way that has provided a natural balance on Earth and prevented the Earth from experiencing runaway heat.

    And as the NASA video shows, CO2 and NO help protect us from solar turbulence, it’s not far fetched to believe they also help lift out heat from down below as well. We all know heat rises…. and CO2 absorbs heat(or radiation) and then re-radiates it. And since it will be excited after being radiated, it will rise up like a hot air balloon.

    I don’t think this is that far fetched. But like Obama said…. I’m not a scientist.

  19. Jeffery says:

    Liam,

    I agree that you are wasting my time, and the time of those reading your contradictory nonsense.

    I call what you do, “sciency”. It uses a lot of scientific terms but is not grounded in the first principles of physics and chemistry. You have concluded that the Earth cannot be warming from the most obvious reasons so you have constructed (and are constructing) and elaborate model that sometimes requires you to change the physicochemical characteristics of molecules when needed!

    You eliminate the physical laws of the universe on a whim. “The Earth would be even hotter if it didn’t radiate absorbed energy from the Sun!”. Duh. It would also be warmer if you reduced the rate of radiation from the Earth back into space.

    Would the Earth be cooler or warmer without its atmosphere? You suggest it would be warmer by not blocking the Sun’s energy. But that’s true only if you ignore black body radiation.

    Why is the moon so hot on the Sun-side but so cold on the dark side?

  20. Jeffery says:

    Michael,

    If the carbon absorbs the energy it also rises and releases it. The atmosphere is not stagnant as you are trying to portray it. There is a term called convection.

    Are you proposing that CO2 cools the Earth by binding up heat, rising to the outer limits of the atmosphere and releasing it into space?

    Besides, our carbon levels are one of the lowest of Earth’s history. Why didn’t the Earth melt and all life die when we had 1200 ppm of CO2?

    Not sure what you mean by the Earth melting. Why would you expect all “life” to die at 1200 ppmv of CO2? No one that I know of is predicting all life on Earth to die off at 500 or 600 ppm CO2, just that the climate will change significantly and life for humans and our civilization will be even more stressed.

    Over the past 800,000 years or so, atmospheric CO2 has varied between 180 ppm and 280 ppm (until the 20th century).

  21. Liam Thomas says:

    I agree that you are wasting my time, and the time of those reading your contradictory nonsense.

    Pretty much everything you said from this point on is a lie or mischaracterization of anything I have said up to and including this post.

    You make stuff up and then build strawmen and attribute them to me.

    The questions I have for you is when are you going to stop using fossil fuels? Your posting on these forums is using fossil fuels. The food you had for breakfast and lunch used fossil fuels and the food you will eat tonight will need fossil fuels to find its way to your table.

    So when are you going to lead us to the promised land….You do not need the 2 percent of us on this planet who denies the real and true science…..so why are you here?

    Why are you here?

    Why are you wasting time trying to convince those of us that are immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

    I understand that the position of the AGW crowd is to ridicule everything said by “DENIERS”….well back atcha bub….

    WHEN are you going to lead….when are you going to stop using fossil fuels….when are you going to make a difference…..

    and incidently…..who might I contact to get me some of that AGW Money your collecting….I could make up shit with the best of them.

  22. Liam Thomas says:

    Not sure what you mean by the Earth melting. Why would you expect all “life” to die at 1200 ppmv of CO2? No one that I know of is predicting all life on Earth to die off at 500 or 600 ppm CO2, just that the climate will change significantly and life for humans and our civilization will be even more stressed.

    So your a cry baby? (Muslims blowing up people, beheading people and raping women and children arent stressful but rising levels of co2 is stressful?) Now true stress is standing in line for toilet paper when you got the runs….thats true stress but we both know that only communists and progressives like lines. After all they are the first ones in those week long lines to get their new Iphones. They like lines so much they camp out in them.

    My question for you is where is this toilet paper gonna come from when there is no more fossil fuels? Are those towering windmills gonna make that toilet paper for you in your communist nirvana Jeffery?

  23. Liam Thomas says:

    Over the past 800,000 years or so, atmospheric CO2 has varied between 180 ppm and 280 ppm (until the 20th century).

    This is just not true. The chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 are accurate and they are extremely abundant. Somewhere around 198,000 reports to date. The problem is that they gave an unwanted baseline. This is why one of the global warming enthusiasts cherry-picked amongst those numbers to yield a 19th century CO2 baseline of 280ppm when it was actually much higher.

    In 1942 the PPM of co2 was measured at 400ppm. However this report is now nowhere to be found.

    This is also why folks like Jones and Mann in building their chart used ice core CO2 for preceding centuries and then grafted that (with some hacking to get things lined up) onto Hawaiian CO2 readings to get a dramatic increase. The Hockey stick must be preserved.

    It’s already been demonstrated that ice cores lose a considerable amount of trapped CO2. This is evident just in comparing 19th and 20th century ice core CO2 measurements with measurements of atmospheric CO2 measurements over the same period. The general contours are parallel but the ice-derived measurements are always considerably lower.

  24. Jeffery says:

    That climate realists are paid by someone to correct conservablogger lies is a common conspiracy meme amongst conservatives. But then, conservatives are nuts for conspiracies.

    I pay myself a lot. But I correct your lies for fun.

    Of course, I won’t persuade you of anything. But I comment to let others see the truth and to point out your inconsistencies.

    You started with melting ice releasing trapped CO2 causing warming and you’ve ended with CO2 in the atmosphere cooling the Earth. All in a couple of days.

    It’s diagnostic of conservathought to hold two diametrically opposed ideas as true and not see the conflict. All the while you ignore that humans are adding gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. THAT’S where the increase came from! Not sea ice, not tilling the soil, not decaying trees releasing more CO2 than they contain!

    Science is not magic, although at times it may seem like it.

    This is why one of the global warming enthusiasts cherry-picked amongst those numbers to yield a 19th century CO2 baseline of 280ppm when it was actually much higher.

    Relevant citation please? If this is true it’s a significant finding.

  25. Jeffery says:

    My question for you is where is this toilet paper gonna come from when there is no more fossil fuels? Are those towering windmills gonna make that toilet paper for you in your communist nirvana Jeffery?

    Regardless of what we do regarding regulating CO2 emissions, don’t you agree that one day we’ll effectively run out of fossil fuels (some day it will be too expensive to extract compared to other forms of energy). What will you do to wipe your butt then?

  26. Liam Thomas says:

    You started with melting ice releasing trapped CO2 causing warming and you’ve ended with CO2 in the atmosphere cooling the Earth. All in a couple of days.

    Actually you have it all wrong. Again. Ice melting does not cause warming. It releases co2 into the air. YOU are the one claiming co2 is causing warming.

    I do not claim co2 is causing warming. The nearest I have come to that is presenting you with evidence of a D-0 Event. 25 of which has happened over the last 115,000 years. It is the AGW crowd who said Co2 DRIVES temperature. It is you who claims co2 causes warming.

    I have never claimed anything about co2 causing warming. I have said the planet is getting warmer and has been getting warmer for the last 11,000 years. I have never ascribed that to co2.

    NASA released a paper in which their SABER experiment shows that co2 in the upper atmosphere acts as a thermostat and reflects up to 30 percent of the inbound solar radiation….effectively helping to keep the planet cooler then it would otherwise.

    But its always a good try to build strawmen arguments and then ascribe them to someone else so that you dont have to answer the one simple question everyone keeps asking you.

    IF fossil fuels are so bad……WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP USING THEM?

  27. Jeffery says:

    IF fossil fuels are so bad……WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP USING THEM?

    IF ALL WESTERNERS USED AS LITTLE FOSSIL FUELS AS I DO WE WOULDN’T HAVE A SUCH A PROBLEM!

    I find your (and Teach’s) argument interesting. You claim you’ll change your minds if climate realists first cut their use of fossil fuels.

    Do you really base your scientific and strategic decisions on what others believe?

  28. gitarcarver says:

    Do you really base your scientific and strategic decisions on what others believe?

    Nope.

    But when people who are claiming one thing demand that others do what they will not, it shows a lack of conviction of their beliefs.

    We all know that you understand what is being said, but because it undermines the veracity of your position, you try to dismiss it.

  29. Liam Thomas says:

    Do you really base your scientific and strategic decisions on what others believe?

    Yes I do. I find many people believe the same things I do. Therefore I endeavor to prove them right or wrong. I make strategic decisions based upon what they have accomplished, tested or hypothesized.

    Just like Michael Mann Made a hockey stick and the gang of 11 jumped on board the hockey stick and proved him right no matter how much they had to cook the books.

    You claim you’ll change your minds if climate realists first cut their use of fossil fuels.

    I can’t speak for Teach but I have nothing to fear in the AGW crowd actually walking the walk. The AGW crowd are there for the money. The foot soldiers are there for the crusade and the people that suffer are the people just trying to make it thru the day.

    Al Gore, Warren Buffet, George Soros…..Buffet owns a railroad, Soros owns half of Brazil Oil, Al Gore….well hes a charlatan. The billionaires are playing you like a fiddle. The millionaires are cashing in on global warming and the everyday man has to pay the price.

    So there is nothing to fear from the AGW crowd walking the walk. The only walk they are walking is to the bank…..laughing at you morons for doing their dirty work for them all the way.

  30. Jeffery says:

    But when people who are claiming one thing demand that others do what they will not,

    Your premise (and Teach’s) is false, of course. But you understand what is being said. Any laws or policies arising from the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will apply to all, and will hardly be onerous anyway.

    it shows a lack of conviction of their beliefs.

    Like conservatives who refuse to walk the walk on entitlements or ISIL?

  31. gitarcarver says:

    Your premise (and Teach’s) is false, of course.

    No, it is not false. The first rule of leadership and asking people to follow is to do what you want them to do.

    Any laws or policies arising from the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will apply to all, and will hardly be onerous anyway.

    So while you make the dubious claim that the effects will not be “onerous,” you are admitting that there will be effects including those in the the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it?

    Like conservatives who refuse to walk the walk on entitlements or ISIL?

    There ya go. When you can’t admit your actions don’t match up with your words abd so called beliefs, blame others.

  32. Jeffery says:

    you are admitting that there will be effects including those in the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it.

    No. But you are changing the subject. Classic!

    Why blame me for your own obvious hypocrisy?

    Buh bye.

  33. Liam Thomas says:

    Any laws or policies arising from the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will apply to all, and will hardly be onerous anyway.

    The reason their have been few laws or regulations other then the EPA unilaterally setting certain goals and standards is because any transition to alternatives would be a disaster.

    Again you and your AGW crowd fail to take into account a couple factors. 1. The people in charge understand this is all about making money and they dont want to see their money making scam collapse. They intend to milk it for as long as they can. 2. There is so much more to just creating electricity with fossil fuels. Almost every manufacturing process uses petroleum products of some sort. Vehicles need it to fuel them. Farmers need it for not only their machinery but for the fertilizers and pesticides that feed the world.

    Additionally Fossil fuels are used to MINE the items needed to create batteries which the AGW crowd wants to transition too. You do realize the strip mining that would have to take place of this planet to create a 100 trillion batteries to replace fossil fuels just in transportation. Not to mention the ongoing strip mining to mine the materials to continue to make batteries that wear out and need to be recycled or put in a land fill?

    This is why nothing is being done to create rules and regulations for the AGW crowd. Your position is untenable and unworkable.

    SURE…absolutely build all the alternatives you want. Im all for it. Go for it….But the reason they need subsidies is because they are not profitable. So when somethings not profitable then the government has to step in and create subsidies to make it profitable. The reason big oil was subsidized was to help offset the incredible costs of exploring for and finding new sources of oil for our own national security. It was not corporate welfare….its the same reason why Amtrack is subsidized….national security….we need to be able to move combat divisions to ports to ship them overseas….you do that with railroads, not electric cars.

    We need oil and gas and stuff like that for our tanks and planes and boats. We need to be sure our oil companies are continuing to find new sources to ensure we have that for our military. National security is why the oil companies are subsidized….not because we like giving huge corporations large sums of money for no apparent reason what so ever.

  34. Jeffery says:

    Right, when WWIII breaks out we’ll send the troops on Amtrak, and that’s why the Amtrak corp receives government subsidies. Will they take Greyhound buses from Ft. Leonard Wood, MO via subsidized I-44 to the St. Louis Amtrak station for the 2 day trip to the east coast?

    This might work if WWIII breaks out in Philly or Havre, Montana.

    I thought the original Amtrak funding was for service between DC and Boston – the eastern seaboard megalopolis – Baltimore, DC, Philly, NYC, Boston etc? Was that just a cover for the troop carrier system?

    Do you think anyone will ever develop trains propelled by anything other than fossil-fuels?

    If fossil-fuels are so critical to national security (is coal?), why don’t we nationalize the energy companies, and take out the trillions in wasteful profits, stabilize gasoline prices for the poor? Why don’t we convert all non-essential civilian uses away from oil and gas and save the fuels essential to our security? In fact, we’re using the fossil fuels as fast as we can frack and sell them. Why not save some for future generations to defend themselves?

    So we need fossil fuels for war, mining and pesticides – besides harassing the poor, the three things conservatives love most! No wonder you oppose transitioning to renewables.

  35. Michael says:

    Wow, took me a moment to get all caught up to the discussion, hahaha

    You guys have been busy!

    Jeffery… I will work on your questions to me… There were two.

    Michael,

    Are you proposing that CO2 cools the Earth by binding up heat, rising to the outer limits of the atmosphere and releasing it into space?

    As I have stated from my very first post… You can go back and see, CO2 and NO act as coolants and lift heat out of Earth’s atmosphere. So the answer is yes. And the sun provides most of the heat, some of which remains temporarily trapped by water vapor, the ocean and the Earth itself. A small portion of heat is also generated by both the EARTH’s core and all the biomass on the Earth. There is a whole lot of heat to deal with and without a coolant we would have serious issues…. Which leads into your next question.

    Not sure what you mean by the Earth melting. Why would you expect all “life” to die at 1200 ppmv of CO2? No one that I know of is predicting all life on Earth to die off at 500 or 600 ppm CO2, just that the climate will change significantly and life for humans and our civilization will be even more stressed.

    You misunderstood my statement I guess. I am referring to those individuals who have claimed doomsday and point of no returns for the last….. Geez, my whole life I guess.

    My point was that if CO2 is such a threat to life on EARTH then why do higher levels not kill off life?

    The reality is actually the opposite. When CO2 levels are at 1200ppm, vegetation growth is significantly higher. Meaning we would experiencing greater crop yields.

    The biggest reason we lose CO2 from the atmosphere is the fact that trees suck a huge portion of carbon out which then remains in the ground unless there is a volcano. Or like in the last 100 years, humans extract it.

    All the facts and experiments show that we need CO2 to sustain a healthy planet and higher levels would feed more people. Thus the change in human life on EARTH would be less stress. Not more.

    You have allowed the doomsayers to make a pessimist out of you. Yes, I am opposed to corporate welfare as well. The best security from invasion is a well armed society. All the rest are excuses to abuse power.

    Free market capitalism and corporations established through state charters are incompatible. They do not exist harmoniously together. When corporations snuff out free markets, dictatorships emerge. We saw this in Germany. When free markets are snuffed out by government take over of all capital, dictatorships emerge as well. We see that even more times in history. But all of this is for a whole different topic.

  36. gitarcarver says:

    No. But you are changing the subject. Classic!

    Why blame me for your own obvious hypocrisy?

    Buh bye.

    Obviously you can’t remember what you wrote. I was addressing what YOU said and the obvious logical fallacy of your argument.

  37. Michael says:

    Can we have Liam and Jeffery on our next Thursday live show??

    I respect each of them as they are each very able to elaborate their positions and I run an open live show for all political beliefs and these two would be amazing to have on the show!!

    Please both of you contact me at libertycommand.org!

  38. Liam Thomas says:

    Can we have Liam and Jeffery on our next Thursday live show??

    Neither one of us seem willing to divulge our true identity. So probably not going to happen.

    Jeffery is not articulating any position other then to troll Climate Deniers as they call them.

    He denies such things as Amtrack being subsidized by the US government to keep trains available in case we need to transport divisions of men to ports so we can get them overseas to where the predicted World War Three might happen.

    He denies that subsidies for Big Oil were for national security concerns rather then for simple corporate welfare.

    He does make a point about unpredictable gasoline prices that are even as we speak artificially inflated based upon supply and demand. Yet so are McDonalds Hamburgers and Heinz Mustard.

    His solution to NATIONALIZE anything and everything and basically become a FASCIST nation. They choose to call it socialism but when you nationalize manufacturing and you tell companies WHAT TO MAKE and HOW MUCH TO MAKE thats pure fascism.

    The AGW movement is blatantly opaque in its thought process. END consumerism. End Capitalism. What drives prosperity in this world? ENERGY….how do we take away their energy? Make energy evil….How is energy evil….ah it emits stuff….ergo…..CO2 is evil.

    They have no scientific basis for their crap they are peddling…….Even the politicians and billionaires on their side know it…..they are all just using the crap to make themselves even richer…..hell even George Soros has a huge position in Brazil oil.

    Anyone remember the Spill in the Gulf Coast? Remember Obama ordering a moratorium on off coast drilling….Anyone care to guess where all the deep water rigs went to keep working?

    Yep you got it……….BRAZIL……yet George Soros is against fossil fuels and AGW.

    Bullshit.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8705 access attempts in the last 7 days.