19 September 2010

Caruba's Hot Air

Alan Caruba has a new column up. No, sorry, let me begin again.

Alan Caruba has a new "column" up. Yeah, there we go.

Any scientist who has not sold his soul to the environmental movement will tell you that the reason that greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), do not cause any warming is due to the fact that they have to conform to the laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that “energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form.”

Energy produced by coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear is energy that has changed from one form of matter to another. The attack on these sources of energy is a direct attack on the economic success of America and it is one that is at a dangerous peak of activity generated by the Obama administration, primarily through the Environmental Protection Agency.

The depth of his scientific ignorance is staggering. It would be ideal to take the number of things Caruba doesn't know about science, and use that as a fuel... to all appearances, that would rival the sun's output in power.

He could actually serve a useful purpose. If we just take the first paragraph of his column and show it to schoolchildren, they will look at it and be immediately motivated to learn, so that they can avoid being like Caruba.


[G]reenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), do not cause any warming is due to the fact that they have to conform to the laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that “energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change form.”

No energy is being created. The nuclear fires of the sun produce light in copious amounts, and the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere merely helps retain that light. This is pretty much the most fundamental fact of global warming, and Caruba's astonishing level of ignorance is enough to disqualify the rest of his column. But of course there's more!


Under the Clean Air Act, however, the EPA does not have this authority as CO2 is exempt from such action. Moreover, as noted, there is zero need to control CO2 as a threat to the environment because, without it, all life on Earth would not exist. It is CO2 that is the vegetative equivalent of oxygen that maintains all animal life. The two are symbiotic and have been for billions of years.

Yes, nearly all life on earth depends on CO2. Similarly, nearly all life on earth depends on water. And yet I'm pretty sure people can still drown, because too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

In the shortest of short term thinking, CO2 could possibly help plants. But they would probably hurt a lot worse by the dramatic shifting of water tables, depriving them or swamping them (depending); by forest fires caused by unusually parched conditions; by population migrations of people and animals; and so on.

Here is a great energy idea: let's power our civilization by producing steam from Caruba's hot air. He spews enough to keep us going for a long time.

EDIT: Caruba replies in the comments below! Well, sort of replies. He says some words, anyway.

4 comments:

  1. How is that some of the world's leading climatologists and other scientists read my commentary and did not come to the same conclusions as yourself? Could it be that my science is based in fact and yours is still wallowing in the totally discredited notion of "global warming"? If so, why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the past decade? There's more, but the facts can be found in my commentary which I do hope some of your site's visitors will read. Thanks for the link.
    Alan C.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You could have at least TRIED to argue against one of my points. I know it's pretty hard to defend your insanity ("PLANTS EAT CO2 SO IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD LET'S GO BREATHE THE FIRE EXTINGUISHER") but you could have made an attempt.

    Earth has been in a cooling cycle? Well, in the big picture two papers were published THIS WEEK (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml and http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf) reaffirming the overall "hockey stick" trend. As for the past decade, well, it's true that things cooled down from 1998. But that's not because there's an overall cooling trend, it's just because 1998 was spectacularly hot. If you graph just the past fifteen years or so, it isn't a very clear trendline. But look at the data from CRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) or NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). The past ten years have included almost all of the hottest years on record.

    You are like an enormous crystal doll made of wrongness, Caruba.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Anonymous

    You still haven't figured out that all the so-called climate data the warmists have fed you is rigged.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess if you're willing to believe that every organization that studies the matter (aside from the American Petroleum Institute gee golly) are engaged in a massive conspiracy to present false data, then there's not really much that could convince you otherwise. This is especially true because your argument boils down to, "the experts ('leading climatologists') tell me I'm right."

    So it's like this: you are unwilling to argue based on the merits of the science. Things like the record number of polar bears drowning because of the melting of sea ice (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece) are either part of a vast global conspiracy or are just misunderstood by foolish liberals. NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and most every other reputable organization are all part of this vast global conspiracy. So because you can't trust any scientist who disagrees with you or any study that conflicts with your view, you pick instead the small minority that agrees with you and insist they're right because.... well, because you HAVE to be right.

    What a broken man you are.

    ReplyDelete