About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On Beck, Monckton advances inane claim that CO2 is "harmless"

October 30, 2009 6:59 pm ET

From the October 30 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Conservatives repeat inane claim that CO2 can't be a pollutant because "we breathe" it

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Major Tom (October 30, 2009 7:17 pm ET)
      3 1
      We're Americans. Can't we just call him Mr. Monckton? The title, by his own admission, (when he was interviewed breifly on Glenn Beck's radio show this week) is meaningless, and was inherited... I don't know... It seems like it gives him this heir of accomplishment, and legitimacy, when it really is totally superfluous. Am I being petty?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rkallen09 (October 30, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
      7 1
      A little history lesson in how dangerous CO2 can be...

      A limnic eruption, also referred to as a lake overturn, is a rare type of natural disaster in which carbon dioxide (CO2) suddenly erupts from deep lake water, suffocating wildlife, livestock and humans. Such an eruption may also cause tsunamis in the lake as the rising CO2 displaces water.

      To date, this phenomenon has been knowingly observed only twice. The first was in Cameroon at Lake Monoun in 1984, causing the asphyxiation and death of 37 people living nearby. A second, deadlier eruption happened at neighbouring Lake Nyos in 1986, this time releasing over 80 million cubic meters of CO2 and killing between 1,700 and 1,800 people, again by asphyxiation.

      Limnic Eruptions

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (October 30, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
        2  
        And cigarette smoke is actually GOOD for you...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (October 30, 2009 11:06 pm ET)
        3  
        Any statement that CO2 is "harmless" is patently false.

        The survival of the crew of Apollo 13 was threatened by the increase of CO2 pollution in the air supply. Had NASA not devised a solution for reducing it within the spacecraft's environment the crew would have died in space.

        While this particular hazard of CO2 is not a primary concern in global climate change warnings, it is just irresponsible science to inject the word "harmless" into any discussion of carbon dioxide. Period.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grunt (October 31, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
            3
          You all are twisting his point. His point is that the amount we put into the atmosphere is not causing warming. Watch the entire episode, and you will see him explain his point.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by SLRTX (October 31, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
            2  
            grunt --

            If there were a point to get, perhaps we could miss it.

            But the "expert" is just plain wrong. No matter how he wants to argue his "logic" on the board, the empirical data from real scientists say something completely different.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
            Report Abuse
      • Author by unknown (November 01, 2009 12:10 am ET)
           
        ahhhhhh all of you need to hold your breath until this CO2 problem is taken care of. perfect, accept you can still type your propaganda.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (October 30, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
      3 1
      Considering that CO2 is proven in a lab to increase surface temperatures, saying it is "harmless" is not supported by the available evidence...unless you are a reptile maybe.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (October 30, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
      2 1
      we breathe oxygen too. but, get just a little too much, like in an oxygen tent, and you don't want to have any flame around. read the label of any strong chemical and a lot of times you see something like "inert ingedients 98%". in other words, the rest is water or another nuetral substance. but add another 2% of the chemical and you have doubled the strength.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (October 30, 2009 7:23 pm ET)
      3 1
      Monckton is a liar, too. He cherry-picks his facts just as fancifully as Beck does. There is climate change going on, the median temperature is still above what it has been for decades, even though the last few years might have shown a drop. If, during a summer, temperatures rise to over 105 for a week, and then drop into the 90s for another week, it doesn't mean it's chilly outside, it just means it wasn't as hot! And yes, American Exceptionalism is a problem. It is a problem for the rest of the world that the largest military and economic superpower thinks it is special and wants to impose its way of life on other countries and cultures, and to act without regard for the costs of or how it acquires its wealth. If the see level rises by 20 feet, the country of Bangladesh will be decreased by 65%, where will the people go? Who will take care of them, or do we just let them drown because they are poor?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by grunt (October 31, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
          2
        Sea levels won't rise by 20 feet. That is one of the many "facts" the U.K. high court deemed errors in "AIT". If CO2 causes warming, why did we see massive cooling from 1940-1970's? There were major expansions in emmissions in that time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (October 31, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
          1  
          You can say what you will, the ice is melting at phenominally fast rates and the snows of Kilamanjaro will be gone within twenty years. The evidence is there, and it's really only Americans who think it isn't happening. Some of them think it doesn't matter because the rapture will happen soon, some think that God won't let climate change happen and some of them have be persuaded by the nay-sayers. Oddly, there is a direct link to one's being an Evangelical Christian, a political Conservative and not believing in climate change. These people also tend to believe in American Exceptionalism, too.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by grunt (October 31, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
              3
            So you ignored the fact that the science didn't match what Al Gore says, yet you act as though some people ignore science to advance their agenda? I don't really care what some evangelicals think. I want to talk about the science. Apparently, you want to ignore it.

            Why did you avoid my point about CO2? Can you show me a report from 2009 that shows the ice is still melting at "phenominally fast rates?" You, nor any scientists, can say the snow will be gone in twenty years. They ignore historicl trends. Their math doesn't add up. Why did the original IPCC report say that there was no connection between man and global temperature chnges?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (October 31, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
              1  
              grunt --

              Ah yes. Deniers skirt the empirical evidence and dive right into equating Al Gore with the facts of AGW.

              Let's get this over with now, so we don't devolve into an Al Gore love/hate fest, ok?

              Al Gore is a self-serving idiot. And he's not a scientist. Ok? Got it? Who cares what Al Gore says about AGW?

              It appears that you are the one who is confused. No one here owes you an explanation. So ranting about how AGW is a "myth" is your problem, not ours.

              Here are some sites you can go to to educate yourself - emphasis on educating yourself. We aren't your teachers.

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/

              http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

              http://climate.nasa.gov/
              Report Abuse
        • Author by rugger69 (November 01, 2009 10:12 am ET)
            1
          Oh come on give me a break, CO2 may be dangerous but what they are claiming CO2 does is false. People who hate the way America has prospered as a country and flourished in such a short time will use any excuse to tear down our system of manufacturing and have.

          Look at all the that has let the country due to over regulation, pollution controls and other nonsensical regulations. China and India have the worst laws and anything goes in those countries why not break the back of those countries and make a level playing field for all manufacturing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by epkklk851 (November 01, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
               
            You know, I have lived in Korea, there are places where the pollution is incrediblely bad, filthy water, metalic gases in the air, you should be glad we have environmental regulations, or do you want to see rivers burning in the U.S. again? Also, you many want to check out that CO2 bubble that killed all those people in Africa. Maybe you would like to have that happen here?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (October 30, 2009 8:22 pm ET)
      3  
      Psst... Glenn... I heard CO2 is tied to ACORN.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (October 30, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
      1  
      And what are his credentials exactly? How difficult is it to have a climate scientist on your show dude? Why does he even have a credible opinion?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mescal (October 31, 2009 2:20 am ET)
           
        Yeah, but if they did all that, would Faux News still be the RATINGS GIANT IN CABLE NEWS?

        That would just make them a news organization, and where's the money in that?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by grunt (October 31, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
          2
        Why does Al Gore? At least the man uses science to back his claims. Watch the entire episode.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (October 31, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
          1  
          grunt --

          Repeating my post to you above......

          Ah yes. Deniers skirt the empirical evidence and dive right into equating Al Gore with the facts of AGW.

          Let's get this over with now, so we don't devolve into an Al Gore love/hate fest, ok?

          Al Gore is a self-serving idiot. And he's not a scientist. Ok? Got it? Who cares what Al Gore says about AGW?

          It appears that you are the one who is confused. No one here owes you an explanation. So ranting about how AGW is a "myth" is your problem, not ours.

          Here are some sites you can go to to educate yourself - emphasis on educating yourself. We aren't your teachers.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/

          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

          http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

          http://climate.nasa.gov/
          Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (October 31, 2009 6:30 pm ET)
        1  

        Some information about Monckton (links below). Not exactly an "expert" in this field. Full of ideas, but never published. Gee. Wonder why. Can you say, "loony"?

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (October 31, 2009 12:30 am ET)
      1  
      Just take a look at the links below to see how "safe" CO2 is on the climate. These dweebs don't even realize that CO2 reacts with H2O to for carbonic acid, which the oceans are absorbing. Beck needs to consult his magic hat to see what his god says about AGW. http://www.mrm.org/translation

      Politifact (not a scientific site, but a starting place):
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/07/plantsneedco2org/plantsneedco2org-claim-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutan/

      Nasa:
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125631.200-ocean-acidification-the-other-co2-problem.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by gpp (November 01, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
          1
        CO2 is essential for life. Without it, plants could not live.

        There was 15 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today during the Ordovician-Sulurian glaciation, 5 times more during the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation, and more also during the Permain glaciation.

        CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere.

        CO2 as a percent of the atmosphere has increased 1/10,000th since the mid 1700s.

        CO2 is only 3.62% of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, makes up 95% of these gases.

        Man only contributes 3.4% of all the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Thus man only is responsible for .001% of all the greenhouse gases.

        Take a look at this chart, this alone will convince anyone that man made CO2 can not cause dangerous global warming.

        Your text to link here...

        The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is today among the lowest in the last 540 million years.

        Your text to link here...

        If someone thinks CO2 is a dangerous gas, then water must also be called dangerous, because water vapor has 26 times the impact of CO2 on trapping heat in the atmosphere.

        Plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2. Higher levels of CO2 will not dangerously warm the earth, but they will help feed a growing world population

        Report Abuse
      • Author by gpp (November 01, 2009 9:59 pm ET)
          1
        If you want to see the truth about man made global warming look at this website.

        Your text to link here...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by gpp (November 01, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
          1
        CO2 can not raise temperatures by itself more than 1C even if the levels double.

        C02s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less heat it can absorb.

        Your text to link here...

        For rising CO2 to cause warming above 1C it must cause more Cirrus clouds to form but observation shows that when it warms this does not happen, more low level clouds form, it rains, and temperatures then cool. The climate has a strong negative feedback mechanism, there can be no run away global warming from CO2. CO2 levels and temperatures have been much higher than today in the past and temperatures never ran away then. They wont now.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hooman102 (October 31, 2009 3:43 am ET)
         
      I think Glenn was a little perplexed by "panjandrum". It verged on elitism.
      Report Abuse