The American Spectator

Bill Pearce| 7.20.09 @ 2:04PM

There is a number of things that has always bothered me about the “Global Warming Debate”. If the Earth is in danger of warming due to increasing CO2 levels, why is the CO2 levels not monitored. The equipment to monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere ranges from a low around two thousand dollars to a full function Multi-Gas Analyzer around twenty thousand dollars. If the CO2 levels are such a danger why is the local weather reports from the MSM not reporting the local CO2 levels. The reason can not be the cost of the equipment. After all the local MSM stations like to boast of how much money they have spent on their radar equipment. Why not spend a small amount to monitor CO2.

Another thing that bothers me is exactly is the danger points in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Where is the point where we can go no further. According to “Global Warming Theory” there is a point in CO2 levels where global temperatures increase exponentially. Has anyone reported what that point is and how close we are to it.

Could it be the CO2 levels are irrelevant to the “Global Warming Debate” or whatever the political lefty's are calling the theory. After all, if someone is running a global scam, that person would not want any facts to spoil the scam.

Tim| 7.20.09 @ 2:52PM

Bill:
Measured in parts per million (PPM), atmospheric CO2 levels are higher now than when there was ice, like everywhere. That was back when those furry elephants were living in Florida.

We also know that there was a lot of CO2 during the age of the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs which are all dead now! DEAD!

For sure there are some folks who claim that other things affect climate besides just CO2 but none of them have convinced Al Gore, so what more do you need?

Bill Pearce| 7.20.09 @ 4:21PM

To: Tim

Tim you seemed to miss my main point and fell short on your main points.
The C02 levels varies annually from a high of around 380 ppm to a low of 320 ppm.
Yet the local weatherman does not collect or report the local CO2 levels. The question is why.

As to your points, During the ice ages for which the science community has records, the CO2 levels went down to around 200 ppm. At that time New York City and Washington DC were under 2 miles of ice sheet. I submit to you burying most of the North American continent under miles of ice is not a good idea. I also submit to you, if an increase in CO2 levels increases usable land area, then the increase would be beneficial. President Vladimir Putin has also made this point before being forced to recant. Also the Mammoths and most of the large mammals were killed off by the eco-friendly native-americans not CO2 levels.

There are no accurate CO2 measurements from the Jurassic ages. There is not even a accurate atmospheric pressure measurement. Gas analysis of gas bubbles in amber dating from that age has proved inconclusive. One thing is certain, the asteroid that did kill the dinosaurs did blow off a good portion of the atmosphere. How much no one knows. I await your reply.

Paul| 7.21.09 @ 1:39AM

Dear Bill,

I think Tim was being sarcastic.

TEACH ME| 8.27.09 @ 5:33PM

Tim,
You mentioned the CO2 levels back when the dinasaurs were alive. The Only reason scientists believe the dinasaurs grew so large was because of the High CO2 levels helped the plant life on earth grow by such abbundance that there was plenty of food for them to grow on. So If Higher levels of CO2 create higher levels of oxygen then why would it be bad for Mother Earth. Please check your fax before writing with your emotions