A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.

"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.

Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html

Makes you wonder what exactly is going on. You have scientist on both sides telling us different things. Guess it depends on who's pockets they are in.
All though it seems more and more are going against the whole global warming thing, or climate change as they are calling it now.
What ever happen to the hole in the ozone haven't heard of that in years. Guess it's not the flavor of the day.

Ahh thanks for this post!! Although expect some to try and go against this. As Gomer Pyle used to say
"Gaaw-aawl-ly" - "Surprise, surprise, surprise

C02 is a necessity for living things to survive, those that propose the opposite are biting their own hands off just for their political agenda. To hell with what we need, lets prove ole "righty" wrong, "righty" is bad. Yeah Yeah yeah, talk to the hand.

We all exhale carbon dioxide, maybe if we shut up those idiotic polishi*tans we can reduce the C02 emissions drastically.

I agree it is a confusing topic and you don't know what to believe. I think this planet has been warming since the last ice age.

The oil industry has funded a number of "attacks" on the CO2 issue to counter the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The "solar" evidence you mention is old news. The measurements of the atmosphere above the greenhouse gas layer do NOT show evidence of solar warming as they should if solar was the source. This author is either being funded by the groups who are producing the CO2 or he is just self promoting to get his name in the news.

There is a reason the vast majority of scientists are now in concurrence with the man made causes of global warming. The reason is that the "science" points clearly to man made CO2 at the root of the problem. And the more you study the problem, the more you realize how big the problem is.

Most of the scientific studies dealing with Global Warming underestimate the effects to be conservative. For example,they do not take into account the massive amounts of methane hydrates about to be released due to increases in the Earth's temperature. This aspect, and other "tipping points", are always ignored by naysayers.

The naysayers, like this guy in the article, make outrageous claims far into the "land of no problem" where no tipping points exist. The fact that global warming is accelerating beyond any of the conservative estimates (which, by the way is why much of the world is starting to panic)is measured fact, not theory.

Here is some science even non scientists can understand. If the price of oil drops dramatically because people are driving electric cars, many companies like those in the oil industry, will lost money. Companies who are about to lose money will pay anyone to say anything to slow that process.

CO2 is necessary, yes. However, nature takes care of her own. When we as humans start messing up the perfect balance she had, that's when CO2 starts being the bad guy. It's simple, really. It's out of whack and we need to do what we can to get it balanced again.

Oh, and the ozone hole is studied and measured constantly if you know where to look. The effects of the damage of fluorocarbons have been so effectively reversed by the same people now concerned about global warming that the growth of the hole has mostly stopped and we are looking at reversal in the trend.

A better source of information comes from scientists who study the oceans and atmosphere like NASA, NOAA, Woods Hole, etc. Some flake geologist who is trying to sell books is somewhat suspect.

CELL PHONES AND MICRO WAVE TOWERS AS IN (MICRO WAVE OVENS )CAUSE THE WARMING ......... SO WE TURNED THE EARTH INTO A BIG MICRO WAVE OVEN..........THINK ABOUT IT.........

Eeeeeeeeeeeek, great now I have this image in my head of burnt popcorn looking people

Actually, that is how the microwave oven was invented. A microwave tower worker had his chocolate bar melt in his pocket while he was working on the tower.

Any scientist who agrees with Global Warming = Honest and rigidly scientific.

Any scientist who refutes Global Warming = Oil company hack or attention hound.



Science isn't a popularity contest. The one who accurately describes the phenomena is the one who is right, not the one who happens to agrees with a certain former vice president.

Below is a link to a speech given by Michael Crichton, wherein he explains that aliens cause global warming. Okay, not actually...He explains that group think and sloppy science has led to our current world affairs where most people accept the existence of "Man Made Global Cooli...er Warmi....um...Climate Change"
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Thankfully, I don't really use mine all that much. My cell phone either

AND YOU SEE ITS CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING TOO...........

he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity...

Interesting thread as usual, and as usual, proof people can present numbers and 'evidence' to prove or disprove just about anything. I gotta go with my gut though that too much of anything can be bad no matter how NECESSARY it is. Remember the woman who died drinking too much water too fast? The argument that something is good for us doesnt refute the argument that too MUCH of it is not.

Michael Crichton was the worlds biggest self promoter and the book State of Fear has been debunked in every possible way ... and you are using it as a "reference"? That is about as outlandish as accusing me of "group think".

And for your information, NASA, NOAA, Wood's Hole, and others don't suffer from group think either... just the opposite. The degree of predatory peer review is large.

Consider the source.

IT IS MICRO WAVE EMMISSIONS.................

His book State of Fear is about the politics and power behind the global warming debate. Although the story is fiction, he raises many good points about how the issue is manipulated on all sides.

True, but in the process he "Created" science and blurred it with the fiction. Most people can't tell where the science starts and the fiction begins.

The speed at which global warming is accelerating is scaring everyone who is really paying attention to the effects. The system is far more complicated and delicate than anyone imagined. When the rest of the glaciers melt (or finish melting actually) the world's supply of fresh water will be dramatically reduced and much of that water is being used to grow crops. Without water, the crops don't give a damn how much CO2 there is in the air. They just die.

I've been reading about the ozone hole. It's interesting how the pollution covering the holes helped us in some ways while it hurts us in other ways.