Carbon Threat

Carbon Threat

In an attempt to justify “cap and trade” (which is simply a thinly-veiled tax) numerous government agencies claim that carbon dioxide emissions from human industrial activities are a major cause of climate change. The facts indicate otherwise.

As reported in Business Week magazine (8/10/09 issue), quoting a June, 2009 report by Greenpeace, concerning deforestation in countries like Brazil, “Carbon released from slash-and-burn techniques, plus the loss of forest themselves, account for some 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the study notes, a larger share than that from all the world’s cars, planes, ships, trains, and trucks combined.”

So while the carbon taxers cite industrial activity as the cause of climate change , and use that assertion as a basis for new taxes, they ignore what Greenpeace has identified as the single largest source of carbon emissions.

How Bad is the Carbon Threat?
According to National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research, atmospheric CO2 content has increased from 315.98 ppm (parts per MILLION) in 1959 to 385.57 in 2008 (as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii) During that same time period:
*World population has increased 131%, from 2.9 billion to 6.7 billion
*CO2 concentrations increased less than 70ppm– roughly 22%
Even at current levels, carbon dioxide accounts for only .04% of the atmosphere (that’s 4/100s of a percent– up 1/100 of a percent since 1959).

Considering that every member of the world population leaves a “carbon footprint”, as does the ever-increasing number of animals raised to feed the world population, how significant can the impact be of burning fossil fuels?

The following article, which references information originally published in the “The Telegraph” (United Kingdom) was published on the National Center for Policy Analysis web site ( on December 1, 2009. Below that, you’ll find this site’s original content, which was published in August, 2009. It contains a number of statistics that demonstrate the reason “scientists” studying climate change felt the need to “cook the books”– legitimate facts simply don’t substantiate their claims that human industrial activity is a major cause of global warming.

The reason why there has been an expression of total shock and dismay over the leaked University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails is that the senders and recipients of the mails constitute a cast list of scientific elite. They are the authors of global temperature record that is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments rely — not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it, says author Christopher Booker.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world, say Booker:
A series of emails shows how Professor Philip Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws; scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

Other emails show how the scientists manipulate data through their tortuous computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction — to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

Lastly, the emails demonstrate the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods — not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.

Last week, the former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skullduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age,  says Booker.
Source: Christopher Booker, “Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation,” The Telegraph, November 28, 2009


  1. The problem is the market is taking too long. The U.S. government has a long history of supporting R&D either through grants or tax breaks. This has been succesful. Thats how the railroads got started. The governemt steps in when the cost of R&D is too high for business to take one espeially in this day and age when the stockholders expect instant return on their investment and high ranking executives are paid based on short term gains not long term gains. I won’t support the Solyndra decision because apparently it was throwing money where previous investment was clearly in question. I’m sure we could find other success stories but the media correwctly jumped on the Solyndra story because of the Department of Energy’s poor choices.

  2. The government has already flushed a bunch of money down the drain– Solyndra for one accounted for $500 million. Time and again, government proves that it can’t do anything efficiently and having the government take the lead in moving towards alternative energy sources will only assure that the transition takes longer and costs more than if it were left to private enterprise. All the government needs to do is establish the target and get out of the way.

  3. yes. The government won’t be flushing any money down the drain supporting R&D for making us energy independent. People can lower their cost of living by using more energy efficient vehicles and appliances. Manufacturers can reduce costs by shipping goods in a more efficient manner rather than trucks which congest our highways. Yes this is social engineering but since the citizens don’t seem to want to educate themselves it leaves the government to do what is in the best interest of the citizens as the Constitution empowers them to do which is protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Too many conservative commentators seem to enjoy misinforming the citizens which isn’t helping the situation. China is now suffering pollution as we are from burnign of fossil fuels. At least they are also attempting to become leaders in clean energy through investments. Some people here in the U.S. seem to be willing to let them take control of the future of energy production helping put us behind China. Think big picture.

  4. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You feel that the best way to show people the “hidden costs” of using fossil fuels is to increase their cost of living. In essence, you’re saying, ‘you really don’t know how much burning fossil fuels is costing you so we’re going to increase taxes so it costs you even more. That way you’ll gladly pay even more for alternative clean fuels. And if that isn’t convincing enough, the federal government will flush about a half-billion of your tax dollars down the drain funding clean energy companies that go bankrupt. Am I missing something?

  5. I not sure how you managed to miscontrue my words and misquote me but you have. You missed the point that by continuing to burn fossils fuels we have already raised the cost of living paying for additional health services, trying to correct damage from pollution to the environment, etc. Those are known as hidden costs which the carbon tax removes from hiding so people can better understand the real cost of burning fossil fuels. Also “cap and trade” is working fine in the northeast where it is already used. By showing people the true cost of burning fossil fuels it makes the alternative clean fuels look reasonably priced and that will drive more innovation and demand for them thus lowering their cost to something competitive with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels like oil are getting more expensive and soon alternative fuels will be competively priced to them especially with the additional demand creating economies of scale as people see the real cost of fossil fuel.

  6. I hope you don’t really believe what you wrote. The true point of “cap and trade” is to levy a tax without levying a tax. Are you really in favor of increasing everyone’s cost of living? That’s what a “carbon tax” will do because fossil fuels are consumed in the the process of creating and delivering virtually every product or service you purchase. Have you considered the effect on people earning minimum wage when you significantly increase the costs of heating their homes and driving to work? We need to get the government out of the carbon tax business and encourage private enterprise to develop viable alternatives.

  7. The point of the tax is to show the cost of continuing to use carboin based energy. Those costs include increased health treatments for ailments exacerbated by the pollution, support of countries that would turn the income against us, lessening of the quality of life, etc. As alternative clean safe energy doesn’t have these adverse effects adding costs to burning fossil fuels helps show that the alternative energy production is not really more expensive. Those adverse effects already drive up everyone’s cost of living. Let’s move forward into an era where we produce our own clean safe energy and don’t have to worry about financing our enemies or having a lower quality of life or health issues.

  8. It’s time for you to climb down off your high horse and take a good look at your carbon footprint. First of all, the statement about slash and burn isn’t mine, it was made by Greenpeace. Secondly, you make the erroneous assumption that slash and burn, motorized vehicles and industrial activity are the only sources of carbon dioxide. Are proposing that more than doubling of the world population, and the non-industrialized activities required to feed that population have no effect?
    There’s no question we need to develop alternative energy sources. What we don’t need is another politically motivated tax that will drive up everyone’s cost of living.

  9. Half or less of the pertinent information leads to the conclusions contained above. Human Industrial activities are still the leading cause of global warming. You state that 20% od the carbon was from the slash and buring of the Amazon which was more than the combined (all the world’s cars, planes, ships, trains, and trucks combined) which at worst is 20% which leaves 60% from industrial activity. The group that was found to be doctoring the data was making a point as to how bad it is getting. Most scientists accept that we are causing global warming to accelerate. If nothing else, why do people insist on believing that spewing pollutants into the atmosphere is not a problem? A basic course in atmospheric science would help people understand what we are doing to ourselves. To think we are not exacerbating what may be a natural trend is sticking your head in the sand. The melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers is causing and will cause massive environmental problems and we shouldn’t be making it worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.