“The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity.” --William Happer, PhD, Princeton physicist and professor, and former Director of the Office of Energy Research at the US Department of Energy
[i]William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. A long-time member of JASON, a group of scientists which provides independent advice to the U.S. government on matters relating to science, technology, and national security, Happer served as Director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science from 1991–1993.
Best known to the general public as a vocal critic of the U.N. IPCC “consensus” on global warming, he has been called frequently to give expert testimony before various U.S. congressional committees on the subject of global warming (climate change). In 2015, he found himself at the center of a new controversy involving a so-called “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace.
K: first of all, your post comes from Breitbart and thus is ideological in nature
and secondly Happer’s field is atomic physics and optics, thus
he has no idea about climate or biology or the effects of Co2 on biological
matter… try again…
Carbon and greenhouses may be good for plants, but too much heat will make them and long before that, make many creatures habitats unliveable.
So the question is if the planet gets too hot or not, and how much co2 would it take to cause creatures rather than plants to die? Plants could exist in much higher temperatures than animals, and if you get higher areas of temperature, plants already acclimatised to e.g. deserts, will happily grow.
I would imagine that rather than the world coming to an end, the world - plant-life, would continue long after it is habitable to humans and many animals. then before that we humans could live in climates which we can exist in, even where some areas are way too hot. If that happens, there wont be so many humans pumping out co2, and hence the planet would cool back down again.
What we do to the world is mostly just going to fuck us and other creatures up, but it wont end the world imho.
it is all related to the solar cycles… in the eighties they were predicting global cooling and then it becamde global warming… and now it is CLIMATE CHANGE . ROFLOL
but one thing is certain: they DO control the weather and weaponize it. Maybe why the defense department cannot account for 8.5 trillion dollars. Indeed where did the money go. Paying taxes to be destroyed, while some are getting very rich
I think that it’s climate change at the same time as global warming at the same time as some trying to control the weather at the same time, perhaps as other variable factors and if any of you or anyone at all is looking for a standalone, standard, normative theory or a singular explanation for it instead of it being an accumulation of all of these things together in variable nuances, I think you or they or anyone will be looking in vain.
Instead of arguing what is and what is not, why not combine head-thinky-spaces and collaborate and blame everything? It’s what we’re largely good at doing anyway, the blaming everything part.
The left are utilizing climate change as a way of consolidating power for the foundations of internationalism and the right are denying climate change as a way of maximising profit while denying problems of an infinite growth economic model.