Reader’s view: Carbon dioxide is beneficial, not a climate-changerStates are faced with initiatives that could impose restrictions on and reduce carbon emissions.
States are faced with initiatives that could impose restrictions on and reduce carbon emissions. President Obama would tax our utility use. He calls it a carbon tax.
We would do well to stop any scheme to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions or to tax them. There are several good reasons for that.
There is no good evidence that carbon dioxide is, or ever has been, a significant driver of temperature. There is good evidence that the greenhouse “fingerprint” model used by the United Nationals Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wrong. The panel’s greenhouse theory holds that temperature trends should increase with altitude by 200 percent to 300 percent, peaking at 10 kilometers. However, actual measurements from balloons and satellites show the opposite. In other words, the fingerprint model, or anthropogenic greenhouse warming, is absent in nature.
The human contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions is insignificant; it’s approximately 0.2 percent. Therefore, any scheme to limit emissions would fail to have any effect on temperature.
Carbon dioxide is vital to all life on this planet. Plant life becomes more efficient at higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. Over the long geological perspective, current concentrations are dangerously low. Restrictions of carbon emissions will harm our economy by making energy more expensive.
According to petitionproject.org, a group of more than 31,000 scientists, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. NASA has declared global warming, or cooling, as a product of solar rotation.
The writer is a forester.