Anti-carbon bias antithetical to the scientific method

So pervasive is the anti-carbon bias that has been created by political, academic and media entities that the mere suggestion of an alternative view causes shocked reactions such as that demonstrated by the writer of the Aug. 3 response to my July 23 letter. Such bias is antithetical to the scientific method, which not only tolerates alternative views but encourages them and tests them.

Contrary to the implications in the Aug. 3 letter, any increase in oceanic CO2 would not result in a proportionate increase in carbonic acid because most of it would be consumed by phytoplankton, kelp, etc., which, like their land-based relatives, require CO2 for photosynthesis. Phytoplankton alone takes out over 90 gigatons of CO2 annually. There have been long periods when the CO2 content of our atmosphere was many multiples of current levels and oceans did not acidify.

Even a small increase in atmospheric CO2 would result in positive “greening” effects with no discernible increased thermal threat.

Any accredited climatologist who seeks supporting grants must adopt an anti-carbon stance, which will enable world travel while preaching the evils of carbon emissions and how they should be taxed out of existence.

Arizona professor Guy McPherson fits this bill perfectly, and he is the darling of global warmists because he says that no humans will be on Earth by 2030 because of irreversible, unbearable global warming. Then why bother? Let’s take out long-term loans and party down!

Happy, guilt-free motoring and flying.

Dan Speas

Haiku