Note Dr. Idso’s references. He is talking science, not politics. The alarmists mostly talk politics, and taking things away from you.

Cosmos, and ND-T, ran their episode on determining the age of the earth by getting so good at detecting lead. The researcher then realized we were adding lead to the environment at dangerous rates. They pointed out the money to be made by letting lead remain. Science was used on both sides.

Sense finally won out. Of course, hyperbole held sway as well, as ND-T asserted there is no safe level of lead in humans. Well, his own show proved him wrong when they pointed out the snotty nosed worker had thousands of times more lead in him than there was in the ice they were trying to retrieve and analyze.

Yes, we want lead levels very low, but it is nonsense to assert that any exposure is dangerous. For global warming, the money is on the side of the alarmists. Those asserting the alarm is false are just refusing to be taken in. It is a scam. The politicians and the alarmists see much money to be made, and much political power to be grabbed. Don’t believe them. As ND-T likes to point out, and Sagan and Fineman, before, nature will not be fooled. Mother nature cares not. She will simply carry on, throwing rocks at us whenever the mode strikes, and not noticing one whit anything we do to mess our nest. Sure, we can mess it up good, and cause plenty of harm to ourselves, but burning fuel that nature concentrated for us is never going to matter. CO2 is plant food, and essential ingredient to life. We can burn all the fuel, and the plants will go right on growing, and us critters will go right on eating them, and the planet and life as we know it will continue.

Watts Up With That?

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas…

View original post 759 more words