4 of 18

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

to have been ca 290 ppm, and all was well then. Since 1908 there has been an apparent measured increase of almost 100 ppm and nothing untoward has happened to the world i.e., no dissolving of coral reefs or sea level rises etc) any more than what happened in the previous 100 years. However, what is important is that this change has had considerable beneficial effects on the biosphere and mankind.

Rate of growth of crops and forests have increased considerably and now we can (almost) feed 6.6 billion people instead of the ca 1.5 billion people that existed on Earth in 1908. Horticulturists regularly use controlled hot house atmospheres of 900 ppm CO2 to boost plant growth rates by 40%. What we need is more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

Many enclosed homes and lecture theaters full of people breathing out CO2 brings levels to 1000 ppm unnoticed by humans but loved by pot plants. No way is atmospheric CO2 a pollutant for we eat it (bread), drink it (beer and sparkling wine), breath it and enjoy it.

Viva la CO2 and down with the US Supreme Court!

References for reliable climate change information:

(1) David Evan's article "No Smoking Hot Spots" in "The Australian" newspaper, July 18, 2008. Evans is a computer scientist who worked 6 years for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He concludes "there is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None." To read article try googling "David Evans, climate change, Australia".

(2) Try googling "Theunen Institute", Germany. Scientists report... "CO2, the gas some see as a threat, is indeed the key to life on Earth." and scientific paper "The Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by A.B. Robinson et al., find by googling "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine".

The major TV and radio news media (BBC, DW, ABC, CNN et al ) are just propaganda vehicles
for the global warming cause and promote renewable resources, carbon emissions trading and red herrings ad nauseam. Only very rarely, and then reluctantly, will they broadcast anything contrary to this belief system (e.g., the UK documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle").

Newspapers are almost as bad but some do take delight in stirring the pot on climate change and attack what is "politically correct", e.g. "The Australian", which is Australia's national newspaper, and Melbourne's "Herald Sun", have the entertaining and sharp columnists Andrew Bolt and Terry McCrann who make mince-meat of the global warmists. Try googling their blogs and readers comments ... "How dare McCrann use science to disprove religion!". However, any publication or article of substance on climate change is picked up by Internet websites that specialize in this topic.

The eco-news website "Climate Debate Daily" (http://climatedebatedaily.com ) is very useful in this regard as it presents the information in two columns. The LHS is "Calls to Action" which is predominantly global warming hysteria and dross, while the RHS is "Dissenting Voices" which is predominantly serious and reliable climate change information. Both sides are added to at the average rate of one new article per day.

A greater amount of reliable climate change information can be obtained from the SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute), at Washington DC (http://scienceandpublicpolicy .org) and for the Australian scene try the Lavoisier Group of scientists at (www.lavoisier.com.au). Happy hunting!

Ends

Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about Why do so many people believe in catastrophic global warming??
We want to hear your view. Write now!