- The Washington Times - Friday, December 25, 2009


Your editorial “Obama’s cold day in Denmark” (Opinion, Sunday) got it exactly right in saying, “The only reason China gives lip service to the global-warming alarmist agenda is to hamper the competition.” Of course, the competition is the United States, and China wants to be the greatest superpower on the planet.

The editorial also asks: “From Beijing’s perspective, if the foolish Americans want to wreck their economy based on the misguided belief that they are saving polar bears, who is China to say no?”

Leaders of China and India are much smarter than our leaders. They know carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, but they would like to see the United States wreck its economy with cap-and-trade. They also would be happy to see the EPA put restrictions on CO2 emissions, which would help China (and India) move up the list of the world’s most powerful economies.

In the United States, groupthink on global warming has gone crazy. I was embarrassed for the United States when President Obama went to Copenhagen and demonstrated his lack of understanding of the climate and of third-grade science, which should have taught him about photosynthesis. Through photosynthesis, plants convert CO2 and water into glucose (sugar) and free oxygen. Without CO2, plants cannot live, and without plants, animals and humans cannot live. Operators of commercial greenhouses add CO2 inside greenhouses because plants are able to absorb more CO2 and grow better in higher concentrations of it. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the start of our food chain.

Plants consume 75 billion tons of CO2 annually. Mankind produces just 3 billion tons annually. Where do the other 72 billion tons of CO2 come from? They come from natural sources like the oceans, which contain an estimated 39,000 billion tons of CO2. As oceans get warmer, they expel CO2 the same way that warm carbonated sodas expel CO2 faster than cold sodas do. If the oceans release just .000075 of their CO2, that still is more than all man-generated CO2.

Al Gore has displayed graphs on TV that appeared to show some correlation between temperatures and CO2. He said, “What more do you need?” Mr. Gore missed the fact that the temperature increases came centuries before the increased CO2. Increased CO2 is the result of global warming, not the cause of global warming.

I sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Environmental Protection Agency asking for evidence that CO2 is harmful to the climate and the driving force behind global warming. The EPA replied but had no evidence. It said I should look at the Web site for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC states that water, not CO2, is the prevalent greenhouse gas. Invisible water vapor and visible clouds produce 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. The contribution to the greenhouse effect by CO2 is insignificant. According to the IPCC Web site, “Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.” The IPCC agreed that increased CO2 was the result - not the cause - of warming.

Anthropogenic global warming is hypothetical. The computer models that forecast minor temperature increases in the next century do not account for thunderstorms, tornados, volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts. Therefore, their predictions are worthless. The Tambora volcano on Sumbawa Island in the Dutch East Indies in April 1815 put tons of ash in the sky that blocked a portion of the sun’s rays, resulting in “the year without a summer,” when rivers and lakes were frozen in July and August of 1816 in New England and as far south as Pennsylvania. Claims that mankind can predict the temperature 100 years from now within two degrees are pure fiction.

People who claim they want to “go green” and reduce CO2, the basic food source for green plants, should study third-grade science and learn about photosynthesis.


Great Falls, Va.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide