CO2 is Our Friend
Trees are a renewable resource. But surely they have feelings too, right? Don’t trees have rights? Who shall speak for the trees? It’s a jungle out here—we need PETT (People for the Ethical Treatment of Trees).
Let’s face reality: the Left will be gnawing at the backs of the productive until we are all dead. Either live with it or develop a taste for sucking on rocks. If you are a part of the free enterprise economy who has your back? It is the Founding Fathers (i.e., what is left of them, embodied in the Constitution and the few remaining customs, traditions and beliefs that animated their creation). They did all they possibly could do – more than anyone has ever been done — to diminish government. That is their legacy and it is that legacy that still has our backs.
Joel Achenbach (The Tempest) observed back in May 2006 that in the global warming debate “skeptics have a final trump in the argument.” What is blamed on America for supposedly causing ‘climate change’ is, “actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn’t some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant — it’s fertilizer.”
The Left does not really want to live in the past and no one really believes the Left wishes to forsake all of the benefits of industrialization. Al Gore lives in a mansion; his electric bill would feed a small African nation. Back in 2006 when Achenbach wrote The Tempest, he quotes ‘Judy Curry, a Georgia Tech climate scientist [Curry’s Blog] who at that time believed that James Hansen “was right” and the views of the skeptics amounted to a “brilliant disinformation campaign.” Achenbach reminds us about what was said when Hansen shared his beliefs with Congress during, “the brutally hot summer of 1988″–i.e., “less than 10 years to make drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions, lest we reach a ‘tipping point’ at which the climate will be out of our control,” is all the time America had left. Of course nothing happened.
But, we’ve come a long way baby. The evolving thoughts in the field of Judith Curry demonstrate the real change in the climate: An opening mind. The Wikipedia® entry as of 15 July 2012 quotes the June 2011 essay that Curry posted on her blog in which she described how her thinking has changed since 2006:
I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting Climate Etc., I engaged mainly at Climate Audit). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion. The book itself, plus more significantly my vilification simply for recommending that people read the book, has pushed me over the ledge and into a mode of aggressively challenging the IPCC consensus. . . . It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.
Shortly after I started Climate Etc., I received this email message from a colleague:
A few years ago, I started interacting with a skeptic who somehow passed through my “ignore skeptics” filter. He has an engineering degree and is quite knowledgeable. My rationale that “all skeptics are troglodytes” has been tattered, and my view of the climate debate has irreversibly changed.
Opening your mind on this subject is a slippery slope into listening to what skeptics have to say. Sure there are a lot of crazies out there, but there is some very serious skepticism at ClimateAudit and other technical skeptic and lukewarmer blogs. I look forward to a growing climate heretics club, where people that generally support the IPCC consensus (either currently or in the past) dare to question aspects of it.