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.
I have chosen just these two important blocks of data that are directly
related to immense costly programs being considered by our Congress.
There are much more data discussions and graphic presentations
contained in the 12-page source I'm using with 132 data references. To
obtain this material go to www.petitionproject.org and hit the box that
says "Summary of Petition-reviewed Research." The third paragraph down
will lead to downloading this pamphlet. You will also find in this
publication, Fig. 11, that the global sea level increases at the rate
of seven inches per century based on 150 years of observation. You can
also ask questions at
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
