An inconvenient truth: The CO2 scare
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
As atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels verge on 400 parts per million (ppm), climate cluckers are aflutter over what Chicken-Little-in-chief Al Gore has called “A sad milestone. A call to action.” But this alarm is as baseless as any sounded by the blame-mankind crowd.
Countering their politically driven alarmism with cold, hard scientific facts that show why CO2 at 400 ppm is a nonissue is ClimateDepot.com 's Marc Morano. He notes that:
• CO2 is just one of hundreds of factors governing temperature and climate.
• From geology's long-view perspective, current CO2 levels are remarkably low.
• Peer-reviewed studies have shown that ice ages occurred when CO2 levels ranged from 2,000 ppm all the way up to 8,000 ppm; that temperatures comparable to today's prevailed even with CO2 levels 20 times higher; and that CO2 rose as high as 425 ppm nearly 13,000 years ago — when humanity couldn't possibly have influenced climate.
• Ice-core data show temperatures rise hundreds or thousands of years before CO2 levels rise.
• And there's considerable evidence that climate drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.
That the Chicken Littles cluck so loudly over 400-ppm CO2 levels despite such damning evidence against their case reveals them for the science-twisting, anti-growth political opportunists they are. Experts at doctoring evidence to fit their preordained conclusions, they're now simply ignoring the inconvenient scientific truth about CO2.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The case of Beaver County Sheriff George David: He should be jailed pending trial
- The Thursday wrap
- Another IPCC warning: More sci-fi
- Saturday essay: Deck of dreams
- Sunday pops
- Extend jobless benefits? It’s counterproductive
- The Nevada standoff