Biochemist Climate Skeptic in a Laundromat
I just moved states, one reason I haven't posted here very much recently. We moved from a home to an apartment, which means we now have to do laundry at a laundromat. I went with my wife and two young girls, bringing along a book with the silly goal in mind of actually reading it. Instead, I herded children around for a couple hours. However, as my youngest finally fell asleep in my arms (in such a position that I couldn't attempt reading anyways) an elderly man approached and struck up a conversation.
He noticed my wife's shirt which mentioned a state from which he had previously lived. We talked briefly about where we had lived, and why we had moved, which led to a discussion about my new job. Breaking the conventional rules of social conversation, I started talking politics. I mentioned that I was a libertarian, and he said he was a conservative. We talked a bit about politics in general.
At some point he told me his age - 85 this year - and I asked where he had worked previously. He said he was a biochemist who did research at Michigan State and other universities. It isn't everyday you meet a biochemist (particularly in laundromats), so I began plying him with questions about various things. For an 85 year old man, his mind was very sharp.
Of course, I'd already broached politics, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask about climate change. I thought he might have a unique perspective on the issue, belonging to a sort of older generation of scientists (think Freeman Dyson). I was right. He had some fairly conventional skeptical views on the science behind climate change, believing they have vastly overstated their case and assigned far too much confidence to their knowledge of the future. But it was his view of the chemistry that was interesting.
Now, his statements here are from memory, after all, this was an offhand discussion in a laundromat. So I'm paraphrasing here. And, I asked for his e-mail address, hoping he might write up some remarks and let me post them. But he doesn't have e-mail. You'll get the gist of it though.
He was indignant that CO2 was labelled pollution. He told me that carbon is the entire basis for his field, organic chemistry. He said that the carbon which is present in every living thing comes (directly or indirectly) from CO2. In other words, Carbon dioxide allows for carbon-based life, or even more simply, CO2=life. To call this pollution is unthinkable.
While I'm sure many rational people believe this, it is nice to hear a knowledgeable scientist reaffirm it. The next time you hear someone say "carbon pollution", remember this equation:
CO2=Life
ClimateQuotes.com
- Background on Greenpeace/IPCC Author Sven Teske
- Biochemist Climate Skeptic in a Laundromat
- An excellent article from William Happer
- Fear of climate change is harming children
- IPCC: Half of Renewable Energy is Wood, Charcoal, and Animal Dung
- Debunking debunking
- Power Shift participant: Join our fad because it is AWESOME!
- A tour of Grist’s Earth Confessions website
- Epic Romm Romp
- Climate Scientists Answer Question: Should climate sensitivity be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly?
Recent Comments
- Earth Day and Environmental Insanity at US Action News on How can climate scientists spend so much money?
- James on Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed
- Wildrose Country Is Not My Country | The Blog According To Buzz on Study claiming ’97% of climate scientists agree’ is flawed
- JJ Brannon on Is it 97% or 66% of climate scientists who believe in AGW?
- Sam on NASA Targets Children with ‘Climate Kids’ Website
Pages
- About us
- Celebrities
- Climate Scientists Answer Question: Should climate sensitivity be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly?
- Draft
- Just kidding
- Politicians
- Scientists
- The Media
Climate skeptics
- Climate Audit
- Climate Change Dispatch
- Climate Depot
- Climate Sanity
- Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr
- Climate Skeptic
- CO2 Science
- Haunting the Library
- ICECAP
- Junk Science
- The Air Vent
- Watts Up With That?
November 8th, 2011 - 13:02
That is fucking brilliant. Water is also critical for life. Please go place yourself under several hundred feet of it with some cement boots.
November 10th, 2011 - 20:48
Thanks for joining the discussion John.
I think your point about water being critical for life is pertinent. Can you imagine someone labeling water as pollution? Carbon is just as much pollution as water is, and it is just as important to life.
As to your suggestion, I’d rather not, though since you claim the Luddite title I’m not surprised at your penchant for violence. Congratulations on being proud of destroying progress.
February 1st, 2012 - 15:38
Thermal energy is also necessary for life. Raise the amount of thermal energy in your environment just a small amount, however, and we all die. Power plants that use once-through cooling raise river temperatures and can dramatically impact ecosystems downstream. This is referred to as “thermal pollution”. Does the fact that energy is necessary for life in anyway contradict this fact? No, and to claim as much is absurd.
Water is necessary for life; water makes plants grow. Would a doubling of precipitation then be a good thing for farmers? Absolutely not; crops would drown and die. If humans were somehow pouring vast amounts of excess water onto farmlands that they did not own, it would rightly be considered pollution, and in the public interest to control.
Phosphorus is critical to plant growth. Should we therefore be unconcerned with the amount of phosphorus we release into the environment? No – excess phosphorus leads to eutrophication and the collapse of aquatic ecosystems.
Nitrogen is also one of the primary nutrients needed for agriculture. Does it follow, then, that we can spread nitrogen around with impunity? Certainly not; nitrogen pollution is responsible for the anoxic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated $82 Million per year.
It does not take a great deal of critical thinking to realize that the idea “if a little bit’s good a whole lot’s better” doesn’t stand up in the real world.
The role of CO2 in regulating the earth’s energy balance has been understood for over 100 years. It is as uncontroversial to say that CO2 will lead to a warmer earth as it is to say that adding a blanket to your bed will lead to a warmer bed. How those changes will manifest in terms of climate patterns has some significant uncertainty, just as there would be uncertainty in predicting physiological impacts from that extra blanket. But to claim that the person sleeping in that bed would not be warmer requires a significant level of willful ignorance. At this point someone advocating that rising CO2 levels will not cause a significantly warmer earth would have to be able to point to an enormous negative feedback mechanism that so far has not been hinted at.
February 6th, 2012 - 21:33
Evan, thanks for joining the discussion.
“It does not take a great deal of critical thinking to realize that the idea “if a little bit’s good a whole lot’s better” doesn’t stand up in the real world.
The role of CO2 in regulating the earth’s energy balance has been understood for over 100 years. It is as uncontroversial to say that CO2 will lead to a warmer earth as it is to say that adding a blanket to your bed will lead to a warmer bed. How those changes will manifest in terms of climate patterns has some significant uncertainty, just as there would be uncertainty in predicting physiological impacts from that extra blanket. But to claim that the person sleeping in that bed would not be warmer requires a significant level of willful ignorance. At this point someone advocating that rising CO2 levels will not cause a significantly warmer earth would have to be able to point to an enormous negative feedback mechanism that so far has not been hinted at.”
I was not arguing that since some CO2 is good, that more CO2 is better. I was arguing against labeling it “pollution”. Your point about dosage is well taken, but not a good comparison since we’ve only increased CO2 by about 33% in all of human history, and it is still just a trace gas. Your examples imply changes in orders of magnitude. You can claim that we’ve altered the chemistry of the atmosphere dramatically, but that kind of claim needs evidence, and there is none. Temperatures will certainly rise when CO2 rises, all else equal, but how much? Is it enough to worry about? The past decade of rising CO2 and almost no rising temperatures says no, we shouldn’t freak out about this. Just stay calm.