“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet — destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world — that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was considered for a time a deadly poison.” — Ed Ring, 2008.
To all of us Chicken Littles, the sky isn’t falling. Do you know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere? 0.042 of a percent. A long ways from 1 percent. At 1 1/2 percent is the beginning of respiratory discomfort for us humans. That is more than twice the concentration of carbon dioxide thought to have been in the atmosphere before plants occurred.
It makes sense to have a higher concentration of CO2 before plants to having 20 percent oxygen at present. Although I have read somewhere that the concentration of oxygen is dropping
But what would that imply if it were true? We don’t have enough plants on Earth for converting carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and biomass? Is civilization occupying so much space that there’s not enough room for our oxygen factories? (Oh no! The sky is really falling!)
We shouldn’t be concerned about carbon dioxide until we know for certain the optimum concentration for plants. In the 1960s some plants benefited from 720 ppm.
Ok, it’s time to wake up and go back to real science. Time to throw out the pseudoscience of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). The science is not settled and the debate is not over.
We need to have people representing us that are statesman, not politicians. People who work for the people, not the party. We need informed, independent thinkers, not consensus seekers. We need people who think of who they represent first and themselves second and the political party, not at all.
True science does not proceed by drawing conclusions first. A scientist looks at all the possible ways a problem could have evolved and then tests his or her hypothesis against evidence to determine whether it is sound.
In this way some theories will survive the test of rigorous examination while others will not. All theories are valid until proven wrong. If we favor one idea at the expense of others, we are necessarily forced into a much narrower line of descent with fewer alternatives possible thereafter.
True scientists are sceptics until the evidence becomes overwhelming. The case against carbon dioxide being a forcing agent in climate change is pretty strong.
Jimmie D. Sund
Chehalis
