Global warming is a government hoax

It seems that the more evidence and expert scientists coming forward to dispute global warming alarmism, the more the government is ramping up throwing billions of our tax dollars at the perceived green-house gas pollution problem.

Now, I agree that we should do everything we can to curb the production of pollutants that enter our soil, water and air. However, C02 seems to get painted with the same pollution brush and that is a mistake.

Ever since Al Gore came out with his manifesto indicting C02 as a pollutant that, unless curbed, will end our world as we know it, the government is gearing up to force all sorts of legislation on us with no proof that these moves will do anything but line the pockets of grant recipients.

So we need some simple high-school science here. Al Gore and company state that C02 causes global warming. It is the other way around, warming creates C02. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the sources of C02 are from the soil, rotting vegetation, the atmosphere, the oceans, and human causes. These are all heat producers which in turn causes production of C02. Human causes account for less than 4 percent of all sources. The largest producers are the oceans.

It is unscientific and arrogant to maintain that humans are responsible for global warming and that C02 is the bad guy. In fact C02 is plant food; plants take it up as part of their carbon make-up. The more C02, the happier they are. And wouldn’t you know it, there is a benefit; plants give off oxygen which we require.

So why is the government not listening to good science; why do they insist on spending all this money without visible benefit to us? Answer: It provides money and power. Climate change is a government run growth industry and the motivators are fear mongering and junk science perpetrated by self-interested researchers, activists, and politicians most of whom are not climate scientists.

Cap-and-trade legislation, to control greenhouse gasses (C02 is part of that), will affect every household, business, and factory and will cost us $650 billion to start. We have to remember that a tax on business equates to job losses and higher costs of products and services, something we don’t need with the present economy.

If we were to reduce human C02 production by half over the next 10 years, that would only amount to 2 percent of all C02 sources in the world. Why would we want to pay billions over the next 10 years for no payback?

What to do? We have to educate ourselves on the facts, reject the fiction, contact our legislators, and write letters. If we don’t squawk the government will literally eat our lunch.

Bernie Wittgens

Kent