Desperate warmists and weather reports

Thomas Lifson
Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, debunks  the desperate attempts of global warmists to assign blame for bad weather to rising atmospheric CO2 in a worthwhile and very readable article in the Canada Free Press. He posits that the current decline in global temperatures in the face of rising  CO2 levels is making the warmists desperate enough to use arguments they know are fallacious.

Meanwhile, here in Northern California, our air is once again thick with haze from the raging wildfires all over the region. We hear from the media that it is a "spare the air" day, with people urged to travel less and stay indoors if possible. Yet not a peep about the carbon footprint of these massive fires. If people really believed that carbon emissions were harmful, then these fires would be a double disaster, and I am very interested in how those carbon emissions compare to the impact of using incandescent light bulbs, soon to be banned.

But we hear nothing of the sort. In fact, the news coverage is very restrained. Perhaps I am cynical, but I have to believe that because these natural phenomena (the fires were started by lightning) dwarf man's contribution to carbon emissions, the media do not want to dwell on them. Doing so makes efforts to sacrifice our economic welfare in favor of limiting CO2 seem futile.
Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, debunks  the desperate attempts of global warmists to assign blame for bad weather to rising atmospheric CO2 in a worthwhile and very readable article in the Canada Free Press. He posits that the current decline in global temperatures in the face of rising  CO2 levels is making the warmists desperate enough to use arguments they know are fallacious.

Meanwhile, here in Northern California, our air is once again thick with haze from the raging wildfires all over the region. We hear from the media that it is a "spare the air" day, with people urged to travel less and stay indoors if possible. Yet not a peep about the carbon footprint of these massive fires. If people really believed that carbon emissions were harmful, then these fires would be a double disaster, and I am very interested in how those carbon emissions compare to the impact of using incandescent light bulbs, soon to be banned.

But we hear nothing of the sort. In fact, the news coverage is very restrained. Perhaps I am cynical, but I have to believe that because these natural phenomena (the fires were started by lightning) dwarf man's contribution to carbon emissions, the media do not want to dwell on them. Doing so makes efforts to sacrifice our economic welfare in favor of limiting CO2 seem futile.