DiCaprio to UN: ‘Planet cannot be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground’


By: - Climate DepotApril 22, 2016 12:35 PM with 38 comments

Leonardo DiCaprio – UN Messenger of Peace
Opening Session of the High-level Signature Ceremony for the Paris Agreement
United Nations
April 22, 2016


  • I am guessing that this wealthy man heats and cools his house, drives a car, and flies in planes… I am guessing that fossil fuels were used to make his movies? I am betting that his carbon footprint is in the top 1% of all humans on Earth! I am hoping that God has a special b1tch slapping ready for these hypocrites when they die!

    • cc

      your figure of his status may be off by an order of magnitude, we might daresay he and his ilk inhabit the top 0.1% of all humans on Earth

      • I am certain you are correct, I just did not want to exaggerate! Bottom line they make me sick!

        • Kathleen Martinez

          “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc24ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc24:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCityGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc24……

      • Bob Young

        you are off as well. I would estimate 0.01% at least. Im sure he is in the top million people on the planet when it comes to carbon consumption between all his very large homes, big cars, pvt jets, and yachts.

    • Bob Young

      Me too. Leo needs to be bitch slapped for all eternity.

    • John

      What makes you think that your god exists?

      • Why does anybody think God does or does not exist? Why does your inquiry have to do with hypocrisy, as hypocrisy was the crux of the comment that I made?

        And BTW I do not have a God, thus the phrase “your god” seems very strange.

        • John

          You did not answer my question.

          But you have claimed that you have no god. How do you know that your god does not exist?

          Pay attention this time. Answer my question, don’t make another ridiculous claim.

  • Duke Silver

    This reminds me of a psychiatric condition known as Munchausen’s syndrome. The purveyor concocts a non-sensical list of symptoms in order to elicit attentive concern from friends, family and colleagues. Having confounded the medical staff he or she will then magically solve the riddle themselves thus proving to all their incredible intelligence, diligence and perseverance.
    Herr Leo wants us all to think the planet can’t survive unless we all follow his lead.
    Unfortunately, Al Gore has already laid claim to that ignominy.
    So, I can see no way out but a grudge match between Leo and Algore for the Munchausen crown. I have to admit it would be sadly gratifying.
    Then it’s Mike Mann and Hansen on the undercard.
    Gena McCarthy takes winner.

    • far2right

      Gina McCarthy will kick all their asses. At one time.

      She was a male at birth.

  • Don Pruce

    Watch out for that Chinook, Leo…It’ll git ya…and by the way, when did you get the Science degree? You really ought to stick to acting…

  • powers2be

    Considering the carbon footprint of the diCAP, are we sure his parents didn’t name him Richard Di Caprio? I ask because he should go by Dick.

    It is a fact that the best way to keep fossil fuel in the ground is for everyone to stop buying the product. I vote for Leonardo to pave the way for the rest us, followed by every member of the UN. Just think how unobtrusive to individual liberty future UN meetings will be when they are Skype’d to each members homeland using solar powered electronic media.

  • Todd Nelson

    I think he should just do without everything used or manufactured with fossil fuels. It would be interesting to see if his hypocrisy wins out over his mouth.

    • John

      What are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint?

      • Todd Nelson

        I am exercising and losing weight so my breathing will be more efficient, therefore exhaling less CO2. Since there is no global warming, despite NOAA and James Hansen changing data, there is no reason to reduce my “carbon footprint”. “Carbon footprint” is itself a misnomer. It should be “carbon dioxide footprint”, but that doesn’t sound catchy so the high priests of AGW don’t use it in their propaganda. There is very little that is plain carbon that has anything to do with carbon dioxide. I use a carbon fiber mast and boom on my sailboat to reduce weight and add strength, with no carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere. If you are serious about reducing your contribution to atmospheric CO2, my suggestion is suicide so you won’t be exhaling any more of it.

        • John

          You claim:

          Since there is no global warming

          How do you know that?

          Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

          BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

          CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

          NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

          UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

          NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

          and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

          Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present (30 year period) for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

        • John

          Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad you’re doing something to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

          • Todd Nelson

            There is no such thing as a credentialed “climate scientist”. To be a “climate scientist” one must start with an answer and then change the data to make it fit the answer. I am a published physicist, and able to read the raw data the satellites have been putting out for over 27 years. According to those satellites, there hasn’t been any warming in their entire lifespan. Even Michael Mann has admitted there has been no warming in over 18 years, and he is one of the biggest phonies ever. Nuclear is the only real, reliable solution, but the AGW high priests have declared it unsafe. They would rather have fossil fuels as a scapegoat than support the only source of power that puts out no pollution. With the proper safeguards we have been designing and implementing for the last 30 years, nuclear can be as safe as any other power source. The environmental whackos now point to Fukishima, when that was a cultural disaster, not a nuclear one. When the generator flooded, anyone at the plant could, and should, have had another one helicoptered in right away. Had they done that, there would never have been a melt down. But, in Japan, nobody is willing to take the risk of making an individual decision. Therefore things move extremely slowly. So slowly that by the time anything was done about a simple problem, it was too late to fix the problem.

          • John

            You did not answer my question.

            I’ll address your rhetoric just to show you I care.

            There is no such thing as a credentialed “climate scientist”.

            That is quite a claim there big boy. That shows me that you have no idea how science works. Citations is very important in science. That is why scientists write journals, you tool.

            You claim:

            To be a “climate scientist” one must start with an answer and then change the data to make it fit the answer.

            That is wrong. Scientific inquiry starts with an idea, a premise, a conjecture, a guess. We call it a hypothesis. It is not an answer, it is a statement that can be false. That is the premise of the scientific method; falsification. You can’t form a hypothesis is there is no falsifiable evidence. A simple example is:
            Question: Why is the sky blue.
            Hypothesis 1: Todd Nelson pained the sky blue
            Hypothesis 2: Todd Nelson’s deity painted the sky blue.
            Hypothesis 3: It is due to diffraction of sun light.

            According to your logic: hypothesis 1 or 2 is acceptable because you think you did it in your dream or you love you deity. That is not how science works.

            You claim:

            I am a published physicist, and able to read the raw data the satellites have been putting out for over 27 years. According to those satellites, there hasn’t been any warming in their entire lifespan.

            Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

            BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

            CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

            NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2016

            UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

            NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

            and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by ACC deniers Christy and Spencer.

            Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1988 (27 years) to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.
            Can you do that Or will your departure now follow given that you have to do some homework?

            You claim:

            Nuclear is the only real, reliable solution, but the AGW high priests have declared it unsafe.

            Who are these AGW high priests? What makes you think that people’s opinion can can falsifiable evidence?
            I mean, seriously, what is AGW (probably anthropogenic global warming)? That is not the scientific theory. The scientific theory is anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and it explains one of the scientific facts (aka a warming earth). It explains more, and have some solid predictability power. If you are really a published physicist, then you should be quite embarrassed about not knowing the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact. And yes, I provided you the data to check for yourself if the earth is warming or not (the scientific fact). We have not even got to the scientific theory. Do you even know the difference between temperature and warming (energy)? I think not, you are yet to convince me.

            You claim:

            They would rather have fossil fuels as a scapegoat than support the only source of power that puts out no pollution.

            Are you saying that CO2 is not harmful, does not cause claim change? If so, then that is quite a claim. Care to back that up?
            Evidence, dude, evidence. Cite your sources, cite your published peer reviewed scientific journals, or else it is your subjective opinion grounded in your denialism of science.

            The rest of your post just supports one method of reducing our reliance on ‘CO2’ fuel.

            You have quite a few questions to answer now. Get to it and try and convince me that your denialism has any grounding in reality. And don’t forget to check the databases that I gave you. I would love to hear your rebuttal.

            Over to you.

  • far2right

    This jackoff needs a cup of shut the f@!k up.

    So tired of these holier than thou, man-bun, pussies pontificating to us and persecuting the poor.

    Here’s the thing dicaprio, stop showering with hot water, stop flying on private planes (better yet, stop flying altogether), never fuel up your 450 ft yacht again, ever, power all your mansions with 100% renewable energy (actually sell all but one since you should not travel ever again). Then your portion of fossil fuels will stay in the ground. You colossal hypocrite.

    Better yet, instead of returning to the 1700’s, let the experts figure out how to remove the CO2 from coal/gas/oil emissions.

    Better yet, let the CO2 be emitted. More CO2 makes life better.

    Or, is it that you hate black Africans who just want a chance at life saving affordable electricity?

  • Denis Ables

    It seems appropriate, that the UN make time to listen to a guy rant about saving the planet who has trouble spelling “climate”

  • jimmbbo

    So, Leo… didja fly your PRIVATE JET to NYC?

  • Bob Young

    so now a dummy who is an actor is the expert?! perhaps leo should give up all his homes, never fly in another jet, or cruise on his yacht, and give all his money to the thugs at the UN, so they can SAVE THE PLANET!

  • smokie453

    This is about the best that you can get from person that goes to work by playing make believe. Maybe something in the water.

  • Anziani

    A–holes like diCaprio are everywhere. They want the “fossil” fuels left untouched. Well then let’s go back to cutting down every single tree in sight for manufacturing and heating. And of course, kiss the whales goodbye as we need their oil for our lamps. And never mind the fact that the streets are filled with horse dung from the carriages and the disease rate has climbed because of it. Doesn’t the fool realize that the hydrocarbons in the Earth are NATURAL and the CO2 from them keeps us alive? We are at 400ppm of CO2 now. If we were at 1000ppm we would be far better off. And of course their vaunted “clean energy” only supplies 2% of our energy needs at a horrific financial price. And forget the millions of birds and bats being killed for “clean energy”. What a bunch of a– holes!

  • Leonard Schopenhouer

    beat his brains out of his skull.

  • Ralph1001

    How can Mr. Hypocrite plan his next big party on a super yacht with all his buddies without fossil fuel?

  • GeorgeTyrebyter

    DiCaprio plays make-believe for a living. That it’s a very nice living doesn’t make his opinions valid.

  • alvin

    I pledge defiance to the system of the United Nations of arrogance and to the oligarchy for which it stands one world equally miserable with tyranny and oppression for all.

    DiCaprio has astronomical stupidity, runaway freight train What?

    Our planet cannot be saved (sarc) unless we hand control of our lives to the “enlightened” supremely arrogant powerlusts that have a vision that would be (but we will not give them this power) hell on earth.

    An upheaval a massive (Al gore believes wrenching transformations are necessary) change is required . A new collective consciousness a new collective evolution of the human race. Leonardo DiCaprio for Pope of the CAGW religion!

    I hope there is a special place in hell for these people.
    Will I be reported to the Attorneys General for CAGW heresy?

  • Another ridiculous actor raving about something off-script. Give us a break. The facts are amazingly simple:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    • John

      Adrian,

      I have some time available and will destroy all your canards. But we both know that you will not acknowledge that, because you already admitted that you are in denial.

      You just admitted to being a climate change denier.

      Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.

      Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial. Oh, the irony.

      That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims, but below is the detail. And we both know that you will not admit to your false claims or admit that I debunked your canards. It’s so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements, yet you chose not to.

      You claim:

      CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition.

      The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

      Only 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

      The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

      You claim:

      There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere.

      Without the greenhouse effect of water vapor, the earth would be 14 degrees colder than it is. In other words, without water vapor there would be no water vapor (only ice). Why does the earth have water vapor in the first place? It’s because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states. Water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

      Climate change as a scientific theory was first developed by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

      (look there under “Greenhouse effect”)

      The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. Without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place. Water vapor does not just magically appear. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      This fails to understand the laws of physics governing heat transfer in the atmosphere. CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM. It absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM. Energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above. Energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend. This process is governed by the laws of physics and is not open to debate. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

      You claim:

      The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

      Eight separate investigations found that no data manipulation occurred. One of these investigations was carried out by Pennsylvania State University, and concluded in its report: “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. All eight investigations reached similar conclusions. http://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controversial-climate-research-unit

      You claim:

      Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

      What makes you think there is an anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? That is the earth is warming is a scientific fact. Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific theory (a hypothesis that graduated because nobody could falsify the evidence). At least try to understand the very thing that you claim to deny exist, bejesus Adrian.

      CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming. About 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

      Again, external forcings initiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming. CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now. Climate deniers do not understand the science. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract

      Some links that shows CO2 leads and follows warming.

      http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf and this: ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf and this: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/bjs0601.pdf and this: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

      After you’ve read those, how about you tell me why you think the earth is not warming.

      Maybe this would help as well:

      Check these databases for yourself rather than relying on claims by others. Here are some links:

      BEST: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

      CRU: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4v-gl.dat

      NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/6/1880-2014

      UAH: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

      NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

      and that includes the UAH dataset, a dataset by deniers Christy and Spencer.

      Go to each database, copy & paste the data into MS Excel or some other spreadsheet, then produce scatter plots of data points over time. Run trend lines through the period 1985 to present for each database. You’ll find the line always slopes up to the right, i.e. warming not cooling. Use this method to satisfy yourself that warming is still occurring before posting again. Any future debate can then proceed from a factual basis.

      You claim:

      Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

      How can you claim that Methane is a greenhouse gas is you claim there is no greenhouse effect on earth? Have it both ways Adrian?

      There are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events. Its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures. http://www.acsf.cornell.edu/Assets/ACSF/docs/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf

      You claim:

      Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

      You are merely underscoring my point for me that you are greedy.

      Of course I don’t expect to win, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs. Yes, the temperature of the sun plays a role in climate. However, the sun’s output has been measured from space since almost the beginning of the space age and it varies only 0.1% over the 11-year solar cycle. It does not explain rising temperatures, and the claim that it does is a common denier fallacy. Increases in temperature can either lead or follow increases in CO2 depending on the cause of the temperature increase. There can be more than one cause, you know. Just because past increases were driven by, say, Milankovich cycles does not mean that the increases now cannot be driven by human CO2 emissions. That’s another common denier fallacy. Planetary positions have no effect on the earth’s climate except indirectly by causing the earth’s poles and orbit to precess. That’s the cause of Milankovich cycles, but they are very slow and fairly predictable, so they cannot explain the current rapid temperature rise. That’s another common denier fallacy. Yes, the CO2 in the atmosphere has been this high in the past. But it wasn’t supporting the same life as today — specifically homo sapiens. The last time was about 800,000 years ago, long before modern humans. It’s now 400 ppm. The last time it reached even 300 ppm was 325,000 years ago, again before modern humans. Yes, the earth’s temperature has been much higher (and much lower) than today, but again it wasn’t supporting the same life because this was long before modern humans. These are just a few of the common denier fallacies that won’t go away because denial is based on political ideology, not science

      The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html

      You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

      You claim:

      Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

      You are assuming it’s all some sort of massive conspiracy among scientists to get more grant money. Remember, the very worst thing a scientist solely interested in more grant money can say is “we’ve reached a consensus, we’re done, there’s not much more to do”.

      And no, the grant money does not go to the scientists. It goes to the institution and they use it to pay staff, scientists, facilities, facilities, technology and instruments.

      I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later. The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of global warming as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

      NIPCC is suppose to be a group of pseudoscientists that are commissioned by The Heartland Institute to write a report for them. The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so. Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference. The group of NIPCC pseudoscientists examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports. NIPCC is not a scientific body, it is a group of people that are funded to write a NIPCC report for the pseudoscience Heartland Institution. Gee baby, do you even know what a scientific body is?

      The IPCC is a scientific body. According to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report. Therefore, the NIPCC is not a scientific body.

      Heartland apparently spent over $1.6 million on this NIPCC project. The latest IPCC report, by contrast, was drafted by 259 scientists from 39 countries, supported by over 600 reviewers and contributors. IPCC scientists are unpaid and volunteer their expertise.

      You just admitted to being a climate change denier.

      Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.

      Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial. Oh, the irony.

      That is enough to dismiss your ridiculous claims.

      • “Thy protesth too much!” William Shakespeare

        This man has taken it upon himself to stalk me on the Internet and put up these ridiculous responses with misspelled words, garbled concepts and exercises in denial as well as slander, invective and gobbledygook.

        He believes in “settled science,” Al Gore and Jim Hansen. He does not understand this is all about money, power, new taxes, bureaus and control of the people. If you follow his links you will find the ravings of men who think anything is OK “…if it brings more money and power to “science,” or at least their version of it. He thinks the IPCC is a scientific body when of the 2500 committee members only 60 have degrees in physical science and of those 12 resigned in protest of the notorious fourth report, asking their names be removed as the document was fraudulent, but the IPCC included them anyway.

        He here claims “there is not anthropogenic global warming hypothesis” as he does not understand that means “man caused.”

        He cannot solve a simple Le Chatelier equation. He does not understand what “trace” means in meteorology, it just goes on ad nauseum…

        • John

          As expected, you lived up to my prediction. I demolished all your canards, yet you did not acknowledge that.

          As such, you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

          It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

        • John

          Let me remind you why I’m not debating you:

          (i) You chose not to answer my simple questions. You are telling me that you have no respect for my time or your own content. That tells me that you are a climate change mis-informer and a denier.

          (ii) You refuse to admit that you wrongly accused Michael Mann. You refuse to apologise for that.

          (iii) You refuse to admit that all your canards failed, that they were squashed by me.

          (iv) I already pointed out that ‘It’s clear that you refuse to answer my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. That is a rather illogical request from you.’, yet you repeated it again. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

          The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective certainty about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between ACC denial and belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific certainty depend on subjective political beliefs.

          You’re quite right that facts and logic are what matter in science, not anyone’s mental state or motives. Indeed, I see deniers violating this rule all the time, e.g., when they stridently appeal (as you just did) to consequences. Governments might use anthropogenic climate change as an excuse to exert more political power, ergo the science of ACC must be wrong. Did I understand you correctly?

          I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.

          The only fraud is on the side of the deniers. They like to claim that the scientists are somehow driven by greed for grant money, which I’ve always found hilariously absurd for two reasons. First, “we’ve reached a consensus” is the very last thing to say if you’re after grant money. No, you say “we just don’t know, much more study is needed…” Second, the loudest screams about financially motivated scientific fraud are from those who stand to lose the most from the acceptance of anthropogenic climate change as a scientific reality: the fossil fuel industry and those funded by them. I don’t know if it’s psychological projection or what, but it’s supremely ironic.

          You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around. And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because: a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claim about humans only producing a smidgen of CO2 emissions. You didn’t say. Sometimes people will only look at the amount of extra CO2 that we add to the atmosphere in a single year. This way the cumulative effects of CO2 emission can be ignored. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you got confused.

          I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

  • Mervyn

    Look, he obviously went to MIT and earned a PhD in Atmospheric Physics, a PhD in Geology, a PhD in Mineralogy, and a PhD in Bullshit.