Letter writer: Climate-change believers betray their naiveté

Graphic by Lori Deaton

The letter written by Anne Craig about the Citizens Climate Lobby in the [June 24] issue of Mountain Xpress [Local Group Lobbies for Climate Change Action] presents a classic case of how brainwashed and misinformed people are about this issue. The people behind the “CO2-caused climate change” false belief have been incredibly successful in conflating their false construct with real environmentalism.

CO2 is not now causing and never has caused the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. CO2 is not a “pollutant.” There’s simply not enough of it in the atmosphere, and the percentage of atmospheric CO2 attributable to all human activities is extremely small compared to natural sources.

Craig makes the ridiculous assertion that CO2 is “the primary greenhouse gas.” This is kindergarten stuff. Around 98 percent of all “greenhouse gas” is water vapor.

She then states: “The most effective … means to [reduce atmospheric CO2] is to place a fee on carbon and return the revenue equally to all citizens.” Aside from the fact that human-generated CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental effects being attributed to “climate change,” the naiveté indicated by Craig’s thinking that if a “carbon-tax” is implemented, the revenues will be “equally returned to all citizens” is astounding.

A tax on energy production would simply be passed to the consumer in higher prices, effectively taxing us, while the huge cash flow from the tax would present another profit-making mechanism for the banker-mafia.

None of which will have the slightest effect on the environment.

People who believe in CO2-caused “climate change” are scientifically naïve and are being played for suckers. We’re being subjected to one of the most pervasive propaganda campaigns in world history under the guise of environmentalism. The “climate change” campaigners are lobbying for their own Agenda 21-based enslavement, while thinking it’s about environmentalism.

— Michael Ivey

About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

19 thoughts on “Letter writer: Climate-change believers betray their naiveté

  1. Grant Milin

    It’s important to respond to these local anthropogenic climate change denial items because Asheville can be a starting point for serious policy, like developing an approach to a NC Clean Power Plan.

    The key things Michael is saying about carbon and GHGs are misleading. It’s not scientific to use the statement “… around 98 percent of all “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. …” Conversely two percent of pure mercury a day in each glass of water we drink would be very, very bad for us, right Michael? Human-caused GHG in all atmospheric air (‘air’ just includes H20, btw) is a bad thing.

    When these human-caused GHGs amass in the atmosphere, they ACCELERATE issues like evaporation making more areas hotter and dryer while dumping more water in inhospitable ways in other areas because our climate system dynamics get more and more out of whack. Here’s how NOAA puts water vapor into context. Trying to say more airborne carbon is good because water vapor is somehow an equal climate risk is not serious.


    Of course there is atmospheric H20. There’s a lot. It’s called the water cycle (i.e., evaporation and rain): http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-water-cycle-precipitation-condensation-and-evaporation.html. But trying to bust IPCC and NOAA findings with a simplistic MX LTTE is literally unbelievable. We can’t afford to go on his word alone, obviously.

    But there’s no denying airborne carbon and other GHGs like methane added by human activity are throwing earth’s Essential Climate Variables off balance. I’ve written more about the 3.6 F red line and our trillion tons of carbon budget: http://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/12/19/trillionth-ton-airborne-carbon-expensive/20650491/.

    There’s actually something to be said about the local rush to get behind Citizens’ Climate Lobby and a straight fee and dividend carbon tax where the entire revenue goes straight to the public as dividends. There were a few key elements that needed to be shifted and I was not given much of a chance to introduce those elements. Hopefully as the local Citizens’ Climate Lobby goes on in time there will be more interest in looking at making adjustments to US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Climate Protection Act of 2013.

    The final problem with Michael’s LTTE is bringing up Agenda 21. The real opportunity for global democracy and equity are the UN Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals. It’s very difficult to criticize the really useful efforts to combat poverty and climate change that are out there, but I suppose folks can spend time doing that ignoble work.

  2. Dionysis

    It’s been a while since seeing such a factually bankrupt political screed like this. The letter writer uses the space to rant about how ignorant people are regarding climate change, making declarative statements with certitude, bring up the discredited bugaboo about ‘Agenda 21’ ( a purely voluntary initiative going back to 1994 on sustainability) and so on without citing one shred of scientific evidence, not even from the 3% of scientists working for or on behalf of the fossil fuel sector.

    As far back as 2009, the esteemed Scientific American put all of this pap to rest. If specious ‘contrarianism’ is what you want, this letter is for you. If actualy facts are more your cup of tea, start by reading this:


  3. L Griffin

    For the past few years, we’ve been listening to all manner of climate “experts” and organizations, like NOAA, telling us that there hasn’t been any pause in Global Warming, that in fact, the ocean ‘ate the heat’ and that it is sitting deep, deep, deep at the bottom of the seas where no one can every measure it, but trust them, it will come to the surface one day and prove there has been no warming.

    Then, just a couple of weeks ago, NOAA made a spectacular announcement that there has definitely been no pause in Global Warming, not because the ocean ate the heat, but because they suddenly discovered that their temperature readings for the past 18 years were flawed. That flawed temperature data has now been adjusted (upward of course) and conclusively proves that the planet has, in fact, been warming for the past 18 years.

    Amazingly, there are still those who ‘believe’ in this junk science. The climate change movement has allowed itself to devolve into just another religion – supposedly science-based in theory – complete with the fear-mongering, doomsday predictions, sin, shame, guilt, tithing, blind faith and language that religions typically use to denounce opponents: deniers, skeptics, non-believers.

    • Piotr

      This is how the science works – you collect the data. analyse the patterns, and present your conclusions. Other scientific teams critically analyse your findings, try to replicate your results, and point if necessary to the weakness in your analysis. Calculating a global temperature from thousands of datapoints unequally distributed over the entire Earth is not a straightforward matter – and other data analysing centres produced somewhat different values than NOAA. Furthermore, Cowtan and Way (2014) indicated that the global averages, such as NOAAs, may systematically underestimate the actual global warming, given that areas with higher warming (like Arctic) maybe underrepresented. So what good scientists do when faced with scientific criticism – check their procedure and correct it when warranted in view of the scientific feedback, and if possible including additional data that have become available . And that’s what NOAA has done – if you are interested you can read more about it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

      As for the supposed “Pause” – it was NOT the concept advanced by NOAA, but by climate change denialists based on their cherry-picking of short-term data (1.5 decades) to make claims about climate (which requires much longer time scales). |As a result, it is not a climate trend . Even within the short-term (non-climatic) time-scale – the rate of temperature INCREASE during the supposed PAUSE (all 10 warmest years on record took place during this “warming pause” … ;-) ) is not statistically different from the rate … before the “pause” (see the link provided). If _ignore_ the errors bars, the rate of WARMING would have been lower during the “Pause in warming” than before it – and that’s where the ocean storage of heat you mentioned would come to play if the Pause were real …

      So what you see as supporting your dismissal of science, I see as a proof that the science works- we will never reach the absolute truth but with each iteration we are getting closer. In fact I would be highly skeptical of any science that got everything 100% right at a first go. And climatology is not unlike medicine – both deal with highly complex systems and limited data on them, and in medicine you will often see one study claiming that X is bad for you and then another that X is not bad. My response – I still go to see a doctor, your response – let’s dismiss medicine a “junk science” and “another religion” (” Amazingly, there are still those who ‘believe’ in [medicine]”) and believe in witch doctors instead.

    • BooS

      I’m fairly certain from your contrarian screed (and the OPs for that matter) that you have never even gotten one tiny piece of real science, yet parrot talk-points from terrible blogs without any thought. Do you really want to put in writing for the world to remember that you’re a sheep?
      Seriously, read some real damn science.

  4. Piotr

    Don’t get the facts get in the way of your opinions, Mr Ivey. If you believe that “CO2 is not a “pollutant. There’s simply not enough of it in the atmosphere,” then go ahead and put your money where your mouth is – drink a glass of water spiked with a bit of concentrated cyanide: it can’t possibly harm you because simply there “is not enough of cyanide compared to water”, right?
    Next, the claim:”atmospheric CO2 attributable to all human activities is extremely small compared to natural sources” – that’s easy enough to test – the preindustrial (=natural) CO2 was 280 ppm, today is >400 ppm. So you are calling ~45% increase “extremely small”?

    Next ditty: “around 98 %of all “greenhouse gas” is water vapor.” First, the number of 98% is a fake – invented by climate change denialist and “quoted” only by other denialists. The reality is quite different – water vapour is responsible for: “between between 36% and 66% “of the absorption involved in the greenhouse effect (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/#sthash.u70iUXKW.dpuf.). But that’s not even half of a story, as the 36-66% is mainly about the preexisting greenhouse effect, while in the context of the climate CHANGE only the factors that _CHANGE _ matter. And unlike CO2, the water vapour hardly budged since preindustrial times – which means that water vapour is not the DRIVER of climate change, but merely a passive feedback, an AMPLIFIER of other factors: warm the Earth by other means (like extra CO2) and water vapour would amplify this warming; cool the Earth by other means and water vapour would amplify the cooling too.
    All of which means, the water vapour makes the climate not less, but MORE sensitive to human emissions of CO2 – since even small amount of extra CO2 heating would be made worse by the resulting increase in heating by water vapour. And that where you shoot yourself in the foot, Mr Ivey – unwittingly you havemade an argument for limiting our CO2 emissions: thanks to the amplifications by water vapour, the CO2 cuts would have a _larger_ effect on the climate than they would without water vapour. But don’t let such details stop you, Mr Ivey, from lecturing others on their supposed “ridiculous assertions”. The log in your own eye doesn’t bother you at all, does it?

  5. Dionysis

    Interesting, if predictable, that these ‘contrarians’ offer their opinions, along with either a spin or omission. This so -called “junk science” is only called that by non-scientists (or a handful of energy industry Quisling scientists). Those who actually study this vital matter know better.

    Facts vs. opinions:



  6. “This is kindergarten stuff.”

    I know. I know.

    Great letter, but a waste of breath in this land of the gullible.

  7. Do you think Nobel Prize winners in science are naive?
    Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’

    Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war.


Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.