I am all for clean air. CO2 is natural, I emit it. Plant trees if it bothers you that it is slightly increasing. Pay Brazil to stop bulldozing the rain forest and begin restoring Africa’s. Those would be a much wiser use of resources than what is being proposed. I would much rather send 100 billion dollars a year to preserve and restore the third world ecosystem than a trillion in taxes and regulations. Restore the rainforests, and you get more rain and less CO2 in the atmosphere. Serious scientists on your side have proposed that. I have no problem with it.

The fact that the knee jerk solution is more regulation should make you think that there is a more sinister agenda. The fact that the science everyone so wants to bow down and worship is not behind it either should make you stop in your tracks.

Look at which models predict the best. Then tell me that I am wrong. Look at history, you see that the climate was warmer and when it was, the earth was better for it.

All I am saying is stop the panic. Act with reason. You want to move us from fossil fuels in the long run, fine. You want to plant more trees and stop the spreading desert in Africa and prevent one in South America, great. You want to base environmental policy based upon science, economics, and human rights and not emotion. I applaud you.

What do you mean we can feed 7 billion people better than 3.5? Do you mean we have enough dirt?

By the way, and the Caribou, if you did not know, are in a very tenuous position…….For some reason their calves are not growing full term……

Let’s be real about the North Slope. They predicted the Caribou would decline. They multiplied. You can go down the list of the predictions for the north slope. They did not come to pass. The penguins did go extinct in Alaska though. They all moved South to get away from the loud drilling noise. Just Kidding. One of the many things a few years in Oklahoma showed me is that oil drilling and nature are compatible.

Paul Ehrlich and company went around during the 1970’s claiming the sky was falling and we had to stop having children. The earth will not be able to sustain 3.5 billion people. The truth is that the earth sustains 7 billion with less poverty and starvation than it did 3.5 billion or 1 billion. It wasn’t that we needed fewer people, but that we need more freedom to innovate and more will to care about our fellow human beings. Socialism was the problem. Statism was the problem. Freedom was the answer. That is still true today.

But doing so, justifies those who see, touch, and assemble the evidence to call out that person to be a fool…..

You make several outrageous claims:
Oh, really. They have been wrong more often than right. They were wrong about DDT and cost at least 100 million lives from malaria which would have been prevented. They were wrong about the oceans being dead by the mid nineties. They were wrong about economic devastation caused by drilling in the North Slope of Alaska. They were wrong about the earth not being able to support 3.5 billion people. They are either wrong about the new ice age or global warming (maybe both but to cover their bases, they now say climate change–I don’t know what it will do but I am scared). They were wrong about Alar. They are wrong about the rapidly increasing polar bear population being endangered. They were wrong that the clean air act signed by Bush 41 would not lead to a recession and then ran against the worst economy in “50 years”. They were wrong about nuclear power.

All of which to this scientific mind……are true…….You must therefore be held accountable for holding those views, which we can only guess are based on ignorance……

For brevity, I’ll just elaborate one point……

Have you been to the North Slope to see the damage first hand?
If you have, then I can call you out as a liar…….If you haven’t, the rest of us will politely allow you the excuse of ignorance….

(It’s been awhile…my friend….(but outrageous claims always bring out the best in me.)_)

Curious, is there anyone out there other than David who hold to such views?