Spending Billions On A Non-Existent Problem

by Dr. Tim Ball - April 27th, 2009 - Canada Free Press

The term “greenhouse gas emissions” is either deliberately misleading or indicates complete ignorance of the science, or both. What they really mean is CO2, yet it is less than 4% of greenhouse gases and the human portion a fraction of that. Why do they want it reduced? It is not a pollutant and not causing global warming or climate change. Reducing it is completely unnecessary and harmful for the plants and will cost trillions. They propose energy alternatives that are potentially more dangerous because they don’t work and can replace only a fraction of existing energy sources. This pattern of identifying the wrong agent of change, blaming humans, and proposing inadequate replacements at great cost is not new. We saw very similar events and sequences with claims that Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) was destroying the ozone layer.

There is no chance that anyone politically inclined to believe in environmental hysteria will ever accept that banning DDT was a con, that banning CFCs was a con ... and that banning CO2 is going to be the biggest con of all. In every case their opposition is political and not scientific. In every case the extremists spent a huge amount of effort to denigrate anyone who dared to question their half baked ideas.

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring back in the 60s and brain washed an entire generation into believing that a fairly manageable misuse of the greatest mosquito treatment ever invented could only be resolved by a total ban of the chemical. The consequence? As of a few years back, 30 million human beings have died from malaria since 1970. By 1960, over 500 million people had been saved by the near total eradication of malaria. Its return as a major cause of death and misery from brain damage is totally attributable to the lies that Rachel Carson wrote in her fraudulent book. Yet 98% of liberals are "positive" that Rachel Carson saved the world. They still believe her non sense to this day. Nothing will dissuade them. Nor do they seem to care that 30 million people have died and millions continue to die because of her stupidity.

The case for CFCs and their useless banning is well made in the article posted above so I will allow that to stand. I do recommend you read it as it is an important scientific case against these extremists.

That takes us to the cap-and-trade gibberish that Barack Obama is trying to get passed into law. It should be a lesson learned that all three of these extremist campaigns were totally political in nature. There is no credible science to back them up. Especially this last one as CO2 is a trivial "greenhouse gas" and man's contribution to it is minuscule.

There is excellent science that some of the greatest periods of environmental and human progress were during periods of the earth that were much warmer than today and with CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher than we currently experience. All you need to recognize the corruption of the concept that CO2 is a danger is to study the medieval warm period a thousand years ago, or even better the Holocene Optimum following the last ice age ten thousand years ago. The Optimum lasted for thousands of years and had higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations and yet it was the period of mankind's development of much of our culture and the foundations of much of our science. How bad could it have been?

In reality, these two historical periods are proof that CO2 is not a problem and that cap-and-trade is a useless waste of money. Cap-and-trade does have the advantage politically (if you are a liberal) that it allows liberals to take over our society and dictate how you live your life. If you want a bureaucrat to tell you how to live based on a total lie, by all means support cap-and-trade. If you want to live better and with the freedom we have come to expect in America, cap-and-trade must never happen!