Anthropogenic climate change is real. In fact, there’s more evidence for climate change than there is for a unified theory of gravity. Around 95% of scientists agree anthropogenic climate change is a problem, and that list starts with NASA, NOAA, and other, similar agencies.
So why, then, did The Hill — a purportedly reputable news organization — give the floor over to climate change denier, Selwyn Duke? In a recent article, Duke, who is listed as a “contributor,” goes on a rambling diatribe apparently trying to explain why global warming isn’t bad or isn’t happening, I’m not sure which.
I should’ve prefaced this by noting that Duke is a regular writer over at Whirled Nut Daily, Joseph Farah’s loony-bin conspiracy website. There’s a sign on the front page of that website reading, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here,” and just to give you a taste of this special little version of Hell, professional stupid person Chuck Norris and rabid dog Ted Nugent write there.
As to be expected, this piece is also arguably less coherent than anything put out by Sarah Palin, so keep that in mind as we strap on the waders and dive in.
He kicks off with the phrase “climate alarmists,” which is always a red flag you’re dealing with an idiot. Climate change is an existential threat to our technological civilization. Since I like not dying at 30 from disease and starvation, I think a bit of alarmism is warranted.
Then consider the alarmism bugaboo CO2. Often called “carbon,” which is like calling H2O “hydrogen,” there’s a reason botanists pump it into greenhouses: it’s not a pollutant but plant food. Rising CO2 associated with rising temperatures augments plant growth, thus increasing crop yields markedly. It’s no coincidence that the dinosaurs’ Mesozoic Era saw carbon dioxide levels 5 to 10 times today’s — and lush foliage everywhere.
It’s true, the Mesozoic Era did have high levels of CO2. But you know what it didn’t have?
If plants love CO2, and more CO2 is better for plants, then I’m sure they’ll just love the atmosphere of Venus. It’s 99% CO2 — all of that plant food should mean life is flourishing. But it’s not, primarily because the 872-degree surface temperature sterilizes the planet.
That 872-degree surface temperature is hotter than the daytime side of Mercury, by the way. It’s almost like CO2 is really effective at trapping heat in an atmosphere or something, but I’m not sure where I’d get that idea from.
Then we get this:
In fact, you just may want to make your “carbon footprint” Paul Bunyan size. For astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James warned in 2013 that life on Earth will experience a CO2-related demise — resulting from too little of the gas. The idea is that an ever-hotter sun will cause greater evaporation, over time reducing carbon dioxide levels to a point where plants will be unable to survive. Luckily, this doesn’t occur until 1,000,000,000 A.D., approximately and supposedly.
Yes, that’s right. Increase your carbon output now, because in a billion years, the Sun is going to expand and kill all life on the planet. This passes for logic over on Whirled Nut Daily and the badly misnamed American Thinker.
As he closes, Duke then pretends to be a historian:
Lastly, history teaches that there’s one kind of disaster we probably don’t have to worry about: the one everyone is worrying about. The majority of “elites” didn’t foresee the fall of Rome, Great Depression or WWII, and they’re no Nostradamus now. Man’s end may come, but it’s more likely to be authored by the geopolitical climate than the natural one.
I can’t even begin to describe how stupid this is. The Treaty of Versailles ending World War I was directly called, “an armistice for twenty years.” None of these things were black swans, but just like we didn’t act to prevent any of them, I fear we’ll do the same for climate change. Morons like Duke would love nothing less.