Carlin Economics and Science

With emphasis on climate change

Why Climate Alarmists Are Not Really Interested in Humans or the Environment

Despite what you may have read from the Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC), especially their sympathizers in the mainstream press, burning fossil fuels helps everyone except the non-competitive renewable energy industry climate alarmists promote. Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) have no significant effect on temperatures in the real world or on the frequency of extreme weather events. Burning fossil fuels means that consumers have cheaper, more reliable sources of energy than using solar and wind, plants have easier access to one of their essential nutrients and grow better and stronger, releasing oxygen needed by humans and other animals.

Burning fossil fuels releases energy stored in the fuels long ago in ways that help humans improve their standard of living by supplying cheap, reliable energy as well as helping present day plants by supplying the CO2 they need for photosynthesis. Arguing that fossil fuels should be left in the ground, as many climate alarmists do, disregards these double benefits which would be lost if the fuels are actually left in the ground.

So we need to use more, not less, fossil fuels to help both humans and plants. Those who argue otherwise cannot reasonably be said to be helping either humans or the environment. They are rather the enemies of both humans and plants by trying to limit the use of energy by making energy more expensive and unreliable, thus less useful in improving productivity and better satisfying the needs of humans and the growth of plants.

Share this Post:

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Just beau

To someone independent minded, the alarmist hypothesis clearly fails the scientific method.

To a member of the climate alarmism tribe, all the evidence is in their favor.

Just beau

This is my way of agreeing they are little interested in humans or the environment. They are more interested in spending, taxing, bossing, and suppressing economic activity.

Just beau

Their geographic scope of their intervention used to be private property as shown with Superfund sites. Thru the USEPA, they could dictate to companies what had to be done to cleanup superfund designated properties.

Global warming conveniently extends the intervention everywhere. Now the target is the global atmosphere. And most human activities rated for carbon neutrality. This is nearly unlimited geographic. scope for intervention, making the cause so appealing to Big Brother power mongers.

As Doc whistleblows, they don’t really care about the environment or human health. They more care about enlarging their political power and influence by an expedient dishonest cover story like climate change. Climate change is a hardcore leftist attack upon capitalism and on human rights based on junk eco science.
Anyone who supports climate change is misinformed or misled or a charlatan.
There is no lower form of human life than alarmist climate scientist salesman, peddling the hoax.

dennisa

Exxon keep discovering more oil off Guyana. This impoverished country hasn’t asked them to leave it in the ground.

https://www.stabroeknews.com/2018/news/guyana/06/20/exxonmobil-announces-eighth-oil-discovery-offshore/

Scott Scarborough

On a hot summer day global warming sounds kind of menacing. On a cold winter night not so much.

JON R SALMI

We all like to eat. Thank-you CO2
We all appreciate a warm spring day. Thank-you CO2.

If you have seen any of those pictures of smoke stacks belching carbon pollutants, remember CO2 is colorless, and thus invisible.

If you think CO2 will overheat the Earth, read the definition of Climate Sensitivity and pay attention to the phrase – per doubling.

If you have any concern for the 3rd-world remember that cheap energy is their way out of poverty. Are you willing to say; we’ve got our prosperity, but you cannot have yours?

Justbeau

Eco activists nowadays like to bewail “carbon pollution.” This is absurd. Carbon atoms are essential for living things.
Burning fossil fuels might instead more fairly be termed “recycling carbon.” Carbon is extracted out of the lithosphere and via burning carbon is usefully recycled within the Biosphere, causing more plants to grow.

Carbon is great stuff so burning fossil fuels is a benefit to life on earth, not a cost.

Scroll to Top