Wind: 17 mph
By Olin Potter
It would seem, from reading last week's commentaries in The Valley Reporter, that we have at least two people who have a problem digesting the information in my previous My View concerning CO2 and its climate effects. The article was entitled "No scientific data supporting need to cap CO2 at 350" and presented verifiable data in two different graphs. These showed the lack of effect that increases in atmospheric CO2 has had on either glacier melting or arctic air temperature measured over the last 200 years. One graph showed the historic effects of solar activity on arctic air temperature variation both in the short range cyclic of 7 to 10 years and the long range variability over 30 to 50 years.
Perhaps there are more than two people who had difficulty interpreting
the graphs presented, so, therefore, the conclusions to be drawn from
this data may be worth repeating here.
1) The fact that glaciers are melting is not a newly discovered phenomenon. This has been going on over the last two centuries at a fairly constant rate. One would have thought that an increase of 600 percent in CO2 starting around 1940 (only 69 years ago) would have increased the rate at which glacier melting was occurring if CO2 was the cause. It did not, showing thereby that CO2 is not the "culprit" it is claimed to be.
2) The arctic air temperature increases and decreases in two different patterns. One is of a fairly long cycle of 30 to 50 years with a shorter faster intermediate cycle or perhaps 10 to 15 years following along the path of the longer cycle. Our last longer range cooling cycle ran from about 1940 to about 1970 and has been in a cyclic rising pattern since then. When this data, in graphic form, is overlaid with that of CO2 increase and solar heating we see two things. Arctic air temperature correlates well with solar heating of the earth and CO2 does not. Again CO2 is not the problem that it is claimed to be. The maximum temperature variation over the last 130 years varied plus-1 C. to minus-1 C above and below the norm. By the way, the temperature trend for America from the 130 years of data is 0.5 C per century.
Remember, these graphs are based on verifiable data, not someone's forecast.
Now you can denigrate the way the publisher collected and/or organized the data, as last week's writer did, but no information showing verifiable data error was offered. This same writer prefers "to be influenced by the 2007 UN report Climate change 2007: authored by 600 scientists. It turns out that the word "authored" here means they can comment on the rough draft of any text to which they contribute but are not allowed approval of the published product. As noted in the Global Warming Petition Project, "The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy."
Until the data behind my understanding of this issue can be proven to be inaccurate by peer review, I believe that CO2 is our friend and helps to promote plant life, including our food and forests, which my source shows are flourishing with the increased CO2. Incidentally, for those who fear CO2 atmospheric levels of 350 ppm, they should know that typical office air conditioner systems frequently have up to 1,000 ppm. Check it out in my source.
This subject wouldn't have the urgency that it does except for Congress. The democrats want to spend billions more of our tax money, which is not available, on a foolish attempt to put a cap on the amount of CO2 that each individual and business is allowed to produce in America. This bill is normally referred to as "Cap and Trade." If you exceed the government mandated allotment, you can buy credits from others, for a fee, which Congress hopes will be in the billions of dollars, to help offset a piece of the huge national debt that this administration is piling up.
Two things here: 1) This plan gives a huge amount of new control over our way of life based on the excuse that CO2 has to be controlled. This, in spite of their faulty logic. The sun will control our weather whether or not we like it. 2) Even if this monstrosity passes into law, American effort would be "a spit in the ocean" compared to the rest of the countries, since many like India and China are the major current sources of atmospheric "discontent." And have no current "...but we have to show them the way." That's the same basis for saying if we disarm, others will follow suit and we will have peace ever after.
No, the only conclusion that one can make to support the Democrat's plan is that it would require another huge increase in taxation with increased government employees and it would provide an equivalent number of liberal voters thereby ensuring a liberal high-tax-government one-party system. This administration and the liberal Congress want to add another scalp to their administrative control along with education, finance, health and manufacture.
Government does not produce capital. After they have the necessary control they seek, productive innovation will be stifled and our ability to compete in the world export business will suffer, resulting in an untold loss of jobs all due to, as President Obama puts it, our "skyrocketing" cost of energy.
Contact your Congress people before it is too late. Tell them to get with the correct program that will insure more, not less, economic freedom.
Potter lives in Waitsfield