You don't need to know why I occasionally see these articles by this Norm Rogers guy, but let's just say I find him amusing.
In one of his earlier pieces on American Thinker (a misnomer, if ever there was one), he outright came out and said - quite literally - that he hates "global warming people" because way back a million years ago, when he was fresh out of college, and shiny-eyed and optimistic, he went to work or volunteer for the Sierra Club. Whatever office he was in, there was an issue about some erroneous information in the "please give us money" letters they were sending out. Someone in management said "send it anyway, as it will get us bigger donations."
Well, poor little starry-eyed Norm was apparently devastated, and has forever decided that all environmentalists are really just materialist bastards, out to make money from trumping up bullshit atmospheric arguments.
Science be damned.
Which is funny, because apparently he's an engineer by training, and incredibly well-versed in both science and persuasive arguments.
Which brings me around to my being amused by his incredible ability to construct persuasive arguments.
Persuasive arguments are just that - essentially opinion pieces with the intention to convince the reader or listener that a particular point of view is valid, or to believe certain things, or to take certain actions - the goal is to convince the audience of something.
Television commercials are persuasive arguments - they want you to buy their product.
The assholes on Fox News give you persuasive arguments all the time - they care less about informing the audience than convincing the audience to believe certain things (often times these "certain things" are total bullshit, misdirection, or even outright lies), but I digress.
So, Norm Rogers has pet peeves against climatologists. Therefore, he writes gems like this one about how the oceans can absorb CO2 indefinitely, so there isn't really a problem with CO2 levels, and anyone who says there is a CO2 "global warming" problem is really just seeking fame and fortune, and doesn't really care about the environment, at all.
And I thought I was cynical ;-)
Okay, so there's his piece about how the oceans can absorb CO2 and life is fine, quit-being-greedy-bastards-you-climate-whiners.
Well, except that rising CO2 levels in the ocean are destroying the ocean, including human food sources, and - ironically - the oceans' ability to absorb CO2.
Because, you know: Science.
See, all these complicated systems are interconnected. You don't get to pretend they're not. This isn't metaphysics, it's reality. It's the same concept of interconnection that the gravitation force of the Earth drags on the Sun, and the collected bodies of the solar system pull on nearby star systems.
You pull enough small strings - or one big string - and you start affecting the outlying systems: One country increases CO2 emissions, one small string. Everyone does it, and all those small strings build into big strings. Drag those strings through the oceans and the plankton die. The plankton die and the fish die. The fish die and humans don't have fish to eat anymore, let alone shark fins for expensive delicacies.
Persuasive argument is fine. Just don't claim a high horse when you don't have one. Glass houses and all that crap.
Because, you know: Science.