Climate deniers get even more ridiculous

[FriendlyFire]

Climate deniers get even more ridiculous

For years, the fossil-fuel industries have been telling us that global warming is a hoax based on junk science.

But now these industries are floating an intriguing new argument: They’re admitting that human use of coal, oil and gas is causing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise — but they’re saying this is a good thing. We need more CO2 in our lives, not less.

“CO2 is basically plant food, and the more CO2 in the environment the better plants do,” proclaimed Roger Bezdek, a consultant to energy companies, at an event hosted Monday by the United States Energy Association, an industry trade group.

The session, at the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, was devoted to demonstrating that “CO2 benefits clearly outweigh any hypothesized costs.” And though Bezdek is an economist, not a scientist, he played one on Monday — showing a PowerPoint presentation that documented a tree growing faster when exposed to more carbon dioxide.

“CO2 increases over the past several decades have increased global greening by about 11 percent,” the consultant said. Higher carbon levels in the atmosphere will boost worldwide agricultural productivity by $10 trillion over the next 35 years, he added.

And this doesn’t include the indirect benefits of good-ol’ CO2. “Over the past two centuries, global life expectancy has more than doubled, population has increased eightfold, incomes have increased 11-fold. At the same time, CO2 concentrations increased from 320 ppm to about 400 ppm,” Bezdek said, using the abbreviation for parts per million. The benefits of CO2, he said, exceed its costs by ratios of between 100-1 and 900-1. A chart helpfully illustrated this “Close Link Between CO2 & GDP.”

“Fossil fuels will continue to provide 75, 80, 85 percent of the world’s energy for at least the next four or five decades,” he asserted. And even if we could reduce CO2, we shouldn’t. “If these benefits are real — and there have been five decades and thousands of studies and major conferences that pretty much have proven they are — then maybe we shouldn’t be too eager to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

This was some creative thinking, and it took a page from the gun lobby, which argues that the way to curb firearm violence is for more people to be armed.

Clearly, more CO2 would make us all breathe easier. “Controlled studies indicated that twice today’s levels would be very good for agriculture,” he said, “and below certain levels . . . plants wouldn’t grow and we wouldn’t live.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...aafc72-8499-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html

USA#1

Given how much lobby money there is in US Republican government and corporate bought laws being rammed through the US. I expect that the idea of doubling CO2 emissions as being good will soon have traction and eventually become US energy policy.

 

[Borachio]

Rising CO2 levels also make it easier to fly.

I really can't see any downside to this.

 

[PaganJulian]

Bizarrely entertaining as usual from over the Atlantic. I've always been curious, perhaps an American would be kind enough to enlighten me. Do you believe the majority of the congressmen that deny global warming, really don't believe it to be happening; or are they publically fighting against a theory they know to be true for political reasons?

 

[Harv]

What is ridiculous about this?

 

[Gary Childress]

Bizarrely entertaining as usual from over the Atlantic. I've always been curious, perhaps an American would be kind enough to enlighten me. Do you believe the majority of the congressmen that deny global warming, really don't believe it to be happening; or are they publically fighting against a theory they know to be true for political reasons?

From talking to many Americans who are "skeptical" (as they like to call it) of climate science, I think the majority are people who fear change and will therefore align themselves with any source of "information" that will confirm their "skepticism". Changing habits, institutions and the way we do things is a BIG step and there are many who fear those big steps for the real consequences they may have on their lives. Change is often hard for any of us to embrace and undergo. But unfortunately it is sometimes necessary in order to accomplish worthy goals that may be unattainable under any other conditions.

 

[Tee Kay]

This "CO2 is plant food" misrepresentation of science has been around for years and years and years. There's nothing new about this.

 

[warpus]

Makes about as much sense as the people who say that rape is good for the person getting raped.

Oh wait, does nobody say that? Yeah, because it's stupid. It's both hilarious and depressing that there are people out there who will believe this nonsense.

 

[luiz]

Yeah that's not a good argument for opposing climate hysteria.

These are my arguments:

- The benefits of cheap energy far outweigh the potential environmental costs;
-It's not at all certain that a slightly warmer Earth would cause more harm than good.

 

[Tee Kay]

You are fine with gambling the planet's habitability on keeping using cheap fossil energy... even though non-fossil energy is rapidly becoming competitive with fossil energy?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are fine with gambling the planet's habitability on keeping using cheap fossil energy... even though non-fossil energy is rapidly becoming competitive with fossil energy?

Luiz operates from pure self interest and his opinion should be marked as such. It's like asking the owner of a butcher shop about the health benefits of eating less red meat.

 

[Harv]

Yeah that's not a good argument for opposing climate hysteria.

Is there a such thing as a good argument for opposing hysteria?

Hysteria, noun:

1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
2. Psychoanalysis. a psychoneurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks, disturbances of sensory and motor functions, and various abnormal effects due to autosuggestion.

These are my arguments:

- The benefits of cheap energy far outweigh the potential environmental costs;
-It's not at all certain that a slightly warmer Earth would cause more harm than good.

So add to that it is not at all certain that more carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere would cause more harm than good.

 

[luiz]

You are fine with gambling the planet's habitability on keeping using cheap fossil energy... even though non-fossil energy is rapidly becoming competitive with fossil energy?

When it becomes competitive it won't be a problem, will it?

And I don't really have much power to gamble with anything. Mankind is collectively making its own choices.

At any rate, I think the notion that the current average temperature is some sort of inviolable optimum borders on the superstitious. Warmer weather will bring some harm and some good, it won't bring apocalypse. As a piece of trivia, some decades ago von Neumann proposed using space mirrors or other such methods to artificially warm the Earth in order to boost agricultural production and end world hunger (and make us richer). I'm not saying this was a good idea, just offering a different perspective.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, maybe when the Earth is warmer we'll get free ice cream? I think it will just fall out of the sky.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Bizarrely entertaining as usual from over the Atlantic. I've always been curious, perhaps an American would be kind enough to enlighten me. Do you believe the majority of the congressmen that deny global warming, really don't believe it to be happening; or are they publically fighting against a theory they know to be true for political reasons?

It's hard to tell sometimes, but of course politics over here (as it is in many places) is mostly about money. For example, Senator Mitch McConnell is the presumptive Senate Majority Leader for the next Congress (2015-2017) and represents the state of Kentucky, whose economy relies greatly on coal mining.

There are also a number of Americans, including some in government, who do not believe in secular governance or freedom of religion. Here, for example, is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma:

Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...e-refutes-climate-change#sthash.T1FFZiZx.dpuf

Sen. Inhofe is a member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, incidentally. A very special thanks goes out to all the folks who didn't vote in the latest election. *slowclap*

 

[luiz]

Yeah, maybe when the Earth is warmer we'll get free ice cream? I think it will just fall out of the sky.

Are you getting free ice cream now? The amount of free ice cream you receive won't be changed.

 

[warpus]

Truth! The only statement from you in this thread I will probably agree with.

 

[luiz]

Truth! The only statement from you in this thread I will probably agree with.

So you think a few extra degrees Celsius will bring about apocalypse?

 

[warpus]

So you think a few extra degrees Celsius will bring about apocalypse?

No, but it is going to cause problems, especially for countries who are ill equipped to deal with them. This will lead to other problems for everybody else.

Who's saying it's going to lead to the apocalypse? Some crazy guy on a street corner somewhere?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What is ridiculous about this?

That should be clear to anyone with a view of climate change a bit more complex than "climate change = more CO2 = more plant food = more people food".

 

[Gary Childress]

So you think a few extra degrees Celsius will bring about apocalypse?

I guess for me, that is something that scientists should be determining. Does anyone happen to know what the latest consensus (if one exists) is regarding the effects of climate change?