![]() |
By John Doraemi (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)
The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature. The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do. This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.
Enter The Politics
If the CO2 theory is completely wrong, and the effects of human CO2 emissions are negligible, and therefore do not affect temperature in any measurable way, then the political side of this argument must be examined in detail.
The global economy includes numerous energy sectors (oil, coal, nuclear, ethanol, as well as clean alternatives), farm and agriculture (biofuels), international trade and agreements, and even proposed new industries that allow "trading" of newly defined "caps on emissions," a fictional concept somehow given monetary value.This means that big players have a stake in the outcome, as does every man, woman and child on planet earth.
Unsurprisingly, Al Gore has an investment, possibly a conflict of interest in the "carbon trading" game. Gore is a co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, and we learn that:"As an Associate member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Generation [Gore's firm] has made a legally binding commitment to purchase Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) sufficient to 100% offset the greenhouse gas emissions caused annually by our firm's electricity use and business travel for the period 2005-2010." --Generation Investment Management LLP website
Albert Gore has a responsibility to answer these charges, and to prove the former scenario, if he is going to go to congress and give his seal of approval to building new nuclear power plants as a response to this purported carbon dioxide "pollution" problem.
As long as carbon dioxide can be called a "polllutant," you and your family are by definition -- as biological organisms -- "polluters." I really don't like the road this line of reasoning points down. It has the quasi-religious flavor of "Original Sin." Leveraging guilt into political and economic activity is a very old game indeed.Professor Ball states that CO2 is only .054 percent of the atmosphere. All human contributions of CO2 combined remain a small fraction of that amount. It's time we got to the actual truth, no matter to whom it is "inconvenient."
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 27 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |