Wind: 17 mph
@BYLINE = By Olin Potter
It is fine to have a dance in celebration of something; but that something should be of value. The case in point is/was 350. What is 350? It's the desire to put a cap on atmospheric CO2 at 350 PPM as the safe upper limit for human life.
Nowhere, on their websites, news articles, video or sloganeering, is there any scientific data supporting the need for this activity. On their website there does appear a picture of Tajendra Pachaun who is said to be the head of the IPPC, the U.N. department that has published several versions about climate change, each one less and less strident. Many of the authors after contributing sections to the original IPPC refused to rewrite in conformance with the editors' political philosophy, and quit. This is the same U.N. that put a government like Libya in charge of a panel on human rights and is very creative in considering other aberrations. Remember the U.N. is a political organization that sees its venue as One World Globalism where independent nations conform to their protocols.
As proof of the bad effects of CO2 one often hears the argument that
CO2 is increasing, the glaciers are melting and the polar bears don't
know what to do, ergo, CO2 is the cause, but take a look at Graph #1
(Oerlemanns, J. 2005, Science 308, 675-677). Remember, this is
verifiable data, not guesses or predictions.
This shows the average shortening of 169 glaciers versus time in years. Also plotted over time is the increase in carbon use which took a big jump after WWII. Note that this sudden carbon use had no effect on the rate of glacier melting. Remember the edges of glaciers can melt, but at the same time the interior mass can build up due to temperature and precipitation changes.
Another argument frequently heard is that CO2 causes global warming and some event that occurred last week, last month or last year is usually cited. If one looks at the historical data researched by several groups* and compiled in Graph #2 one sees that, yes, arctic air temperature is on a general upward trend since about 1960 but with considerable variation.
This data is again plotted against time in years along with world carbon usage but also includes the variation in solar activity. The arctic air temperature and the solar activity correlate with each other but not with carbon use. The variations in surface air temperature have to do with sunspot cycle amplitude and length, solar equatorial rotation rate and earth's axis wobble, etc.
Again, CO2 is not the culprit. Variations in solar heating of the earth is the cause. As graph #2 shows, lengthy cyclic variations are a normal condition, not something to destroy our economy over.
For more complete data on weather-related CO2 issues, punch up www.petitionproject.org which at last count had 31,478 American scientists' signatures rejecting the Kyoto proposals and that CO2, methane or other "greenhouse " gases will not cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere, etc. There is also a link entitled "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research." Peer-review incidentally is something that Al Gore does not allow about his fairy tale, which is a normal approach for any scientific endeavor that has any merit.
So why do we have all these young, naive people beating the drum against increasing CO2 when it is really one of the minor gasses in our atmosphere and is necessary for all plant growth. It comes in several parts: People like to feel that they are helpful. It's a natural American gift. The politicians promote it because it gives them a crisis to take to the voters showing that they are doing something. Colleges like all the research money they can get and pump up the need for more study. Also, the UN promotes it to expand their drive for One World Globalism and it is all regurgitated through our one-mind media promoting populist programs of little value.
As an offshoot of this mentality is the "Cap and Trade" legislation waiting in Congress that would "Cap" everyone's allowed carbon (CO2) emissions. The "Trade" would make it possible to swap carbon shares (for a fee, tax) not up to their cap.
Can you imagine the bureaucratic cost of managing such an unnecessary monstrosity and the damage it would do to our job force by putting our export business at a terrible disadvantage due to the higher price of energy and the cost of producing goods, to say nothing about our individual skyrocketing electric bills.
Pursuing such a criminal adventure would accomplish one thing though. It would increase the number of people working for our government and thereby expand the Democrat voting bloc to ensure that their government expansion continues at great cost to American initiatives and jobs. Remember, government does not create capital; they just take your tax money and redistribute it. Government workers are paid by others who do productive work.
Before it is too late, make your own noise in Washington. Make them understand that we want nothing to do with demonizing CO2 and the associated devastating legislation. What is needed is less government and more economic freedom.
*Marland, Boden, Anders 2007 Global CO2 emissions, Nat'l Lab, US Dept. Energy. Oak Ridge, Tn. W. Soon, 2005, Geophysical Letters 32. Hoyt, Schatten Geophysical Res. 98.
Potter lives in Waitsfield.