From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Even if the climate catastrophists’ wild speculations about more extreme weather ends up to have a modicum of truth, what humane person would advocate, as a solution, a return life to the days when droughts brought famine? Fossil fuels are getting cleaner-burning all the time, thanks to ever-advancing anti-pollution technologies. (That’s why anti-fossil fanatics have adopted the “carbon pollution” mantra. But as anybody with a kindergarten level of science knowledge knows, co2 is not a pollutant.) Those who want to stop fossil fuel development, such as the quasi-religious, totalitarian Environmentalists, are inhumane in the extreme.
We must understand the full risk context. The risk of lack of reliable energy far, far outweighs the risk of potential spills. Fossil fuels are the best and most progressive energy source we have today. Yes, fossils have drawbacks, as does every energy source. But the risks of ending fossil fuels would be truly catastrophic. Technological progress may, and probably will at some point, arise to replace fossil fuels as the main driver of industry. But that could be decades or even centuries away. Until then, pro-life = pro-fossil fuels.
But as anybody with a kindergarten level of science knowledge knows, co2 is not a pollutant.
Yawn. And anyone with an above-kindergarten level should know that substances which are benign in some contexts can be pollutants in others. Yes, CO2 is necessary for life, but it remains true that excessive amounts of it intensify the greenhouse effect and raise the overall planetary temperature.
The wingnut argument on this point is like saying that because water is necessary for life, floods and tsunamis can’t be dangerous.
CO2 isn’t a pollutant! Carbon dating isn’t always reliable! How can there be global warming if it’s so cold!? If we evolved, why are there still monkeys!?
Conservatives have no interest in having their objections to scientific claims addressed, especially by actual scientists. If they were really interested in the truth, these claims and arguments would not be so common among them after so much time and debunking. It is frustrating that the level of scientific debate in the US just can’t seem to rise above idiocy that doesn’t even require expertise to identify as such — and that Republicans can and do craft policy accordingly.
Of course, this isn’t limited to science. After all… Lincoln was a Republican! Take that, liberals!