Twitter / divadoll123

I love global warming. If you waste tons of $ to end it and it ends naturally (b/c it never existed), you can claim success. What a crock.

Ove’s latest big scare | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

...any guess why the WWF chose Ove, above all the coral experts in the world, to do its research?

SF Environmental Policy Examiner: What is winning or losing when it comes to global warming?

Can anyone say that one climate is better than another? What are we aiming for? In the chart above, there are two things worth noticing--one is the narrow band climate has operated in for the past 10,000 years. We are still within that band. The other thing is the labels--we called the Holocene and Roman Optimums because they were good for us. Food grew more abundantly. Civilisations thrived. They were followed by the Dark Ages and the Plague Years because it got cold.

But in all the time I've been reading about climate change, I still haven't seen anyone say what they think the goal is in terms of global mean temperature. They always talk in terms of avoiding temperature rises or preventing the emission of x tons of CO2. But what is the desired result?

Newsmax.com - Rep. Barton: Even Democrats Divided on Climate Change

Under Obama, the EPA has issued an endangerment finding saying that carbon dioxide is a hazard to public health.

“Of course, they’ve not really given any explicit examples of that, because they can’t,” Barton says. “There’s never been anybody who’s been treated in an emergency room for CO2 poisoning. It doesn’t cause asthma; it doesn’t cause your eyes to water; it doesn’t cause cancer.”

Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.

“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”