Starnes: NPR claims babies cause global warming

Todd Starnes reacts to a study NPR reported claiming babies are a leading cause of global warming

In one minute, learn why warmer temperatures cause more rain to fall. While some parts of the country are experiencing intense droughts due to global warming, traditionally wet climates like Minnesota’s are getting even wetter.

Part of Climate Change in Minnesota: An MPR News special report

24 thoughts on “Starnes: NPR claims babies cause global warming”

  1. I'd be more inclined to trust their intentions if they didn't push thus crap while simultaneously pushing mass ethnic replacement coming exclusively from poor (i.e. low emissions) countries. 100 million non-whites immigrated to the US since 1965. 100% of population growth in the first world comes from non-white immigrants. P.S. Only white people care about the environment

  2. As usual Mexicans, Africans will be encouraged to make babies and whites told to stop and make way for the third world garbage

  3. And who breeds the most in this world? That would be the dimocrats favored groups anyone that isn't White.

  4. No, NPR did not state this. Why do you feel you must lie? Could it be because you cannot find anything real to complain about?

  5. CO2 gas emissions could be reduced by putting an end to mass immigration and zero population growth across the world. But Liberals aren't for that.

  6. I wonder if the brain-dead Bill Nye realizes he is in that category of 'old' people he's talking about croaking that don't fall for his climate lies. He's turned into a real Dufus!

  7. The whole radiative greenhouse effect is totally invalid, because they "explain" surface temperatures by adding 324W/m^2 of radiation from the colder atmosphere that supposedly can be added to 168W/m^2 of solar radiation. Then they deduct over 100W/m^2 for convection and latent heat to get a net figure of 390W/m^2 which is the exact flux for a perfect black body to reach 288K. But the back radiation does not add thermal energy, so they should use 390-324 = 66W/m^2 which of course gets nowhere near sufficient radiation to support the surface temperature. That's why the whole paradigm is wrong and it is gravity which traps heat on all planets and downward convective heat transfers provide the energy which back radiation cannot. ¬†Water vapor does not warm by about 15 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere, ¬†and rain forests (with 4%) are not 45 degrees hotter than dry regions with 1% water vapor. ¬†Read about the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate change science – science that works on all planets … correct science,

  8. Much as I wish this alluringly simple video were true, it's not: heat from the air heats up the surface water molecules, which eventually acquire enough kinetic energy to "kick free" of the bonds holding them close to other water molecules, releasing it into the air — think of a golfer whacking a ball high into the sky, for a more accurate simile. See water vapor in wikipedia for a longer description. Misled by the term "saturation", one starts thinking it has to do with more space between molecules (wrong) as the air heats, not heat energetically kicking water molecules into the air (right).

    ¬†For this video to be correct in its use of metaphors, it would have to show the blue sand going in among the kernels, and increasing its rate of dissemination among the kernels as the blue sand was heated…. what we have, instead, is something alluringly simple, and wrong.¬†

    They could remake this, using 2 setups of blue ice cream sitting on top of popcorn in a glass container: broil one in a stove, then show both being dumped through a sieve, side by side. One side will shower blue goop, while the other won't.  Hope this helps. 

  9. Excellent and simply explained. I guess its also important that some people learn that precipitation includes both rain and snow.

  10. You can forget about the garbage "science" which claims that the Sun's radiation plus radiation from a planet's colder troposphere somehow explains the planet's surface temperature.  It doesn't.  Not on Earth.  Not on Venus and certainly not at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there is no solar radiation or surface, yet it's hotter than Earth's surface down there. 

    You can forget the garbage "science" which then claims the temperature gradient (aka "lapse rate") is caused by rising parcels of air that could only be held together by wind in all its forms.  Such a process does not form the expected temperature gradient.  Only the very slow diffusion process does so Рthat same process that you see when your car has been heated up by the Sun in your driveway and you then drive it into your garage, close the garage door and open all the car doors.  That is not wind even if you can detect very slow advection due to net molecular motion.

    What does happen on every planet is that radiative balance is attained with the Sun, though in detail the planet cools on its dark side and warms back up by the same amount on its sunlit side.  The temperature gradient is formed at the molecular level due to the force of gravity acting on molecules as they move between collisions.  We see physical evidence of a (centrifugal) force field redistributing molecular (micro) kinetic energy and producing hot and cold streams of gas in a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube.

    So radiative balance sets the overall mean temperature in the troposphere and then gravity induces a temperature gradient.  That gradient is then reduced in magnitude by intermolecular radiation between molecules of water vapor and other so-called greenhouse gases.  We know water vapor reduces the gradient, so the thermal profile rotates downwards at the surface end.  It is ludicrous to think that water vapor raises surface temperatures by most of "33 degrees" when in fact it lowers them and empirical evidence confirms this.  There's more evidence here:

Comments are closed.