Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
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 the 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.
Check out our gallery of political cartoons.
Want your Whispers first? Check out U.S. News Weekly.
Tags: global warming | carbon dioxide
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (190) | Print
Reader Comments
Go Steward!!!
I so agree with the fact that global warming is not cuased by CO2,as a matter of a fact i think that global warming isnt real.
Really all dat global warming is a bunch of bs,because if you think about the earhts tempature changes,depending on many different factors,such as the location,and the region. The only reason people think that global warming is real is because, sciencetist make it seeem like it is. Because of the fact that there in a higher position(they know more) than the untraind people who dont know anything about the earth changing they are diffinatley going to believe the scientist. Because ther more educated about the earth
Steward's D.C. visit
USN&WR's Paul Bedard's Oct. 7, 2009 article was about H. Leighton Steward's visit to Washington, D.C. to meet with people in congress. As of today, November 14, 2009, there hasn't been a single report in any news media about that visit. There's even been nothing in USN&WR, Fox News or any web site. Even web-sites associated with H. Leighton Steward haven't reported anything about his visit!! If anything exists anywhere about his visit, please post it here. Untill that time - for some of those folks who are posting claims of media bias - please take note that no media on either side of the fence has reported anything about Steward's visit. And, Steward's own web site hasn't reported his own visit!!
There are NOT always two equal sides to every story!
There is a crazy notion out there in media-land that they always have to present "the other side" of the story--as if every story is so simple that it can be boiled down to two opposing and equally legitimate points of view.
Science is always used by politicians to justify whatever position they want to argue, but that does not justify the politicizing of scientific results. There is a preponderance of evidence that green house gases contribute to global warming, but most people assume science is about proving things. A foundational principle in the philosophy of science is that you cannot prove anything definitively--there are only degrees of uncertainty. While a few studies are interesting, a body of peer-reviewed literature is useful to inform public policy. Since most people don't get this about scientific results, an individual scientist can exploit any iota of doubt and exception to the rule to justify a particular world view.
In the world of journalism which equates any two stories as necessarily equal (because it wouldn't be fair to consider one side better than the other?), the small minority of anti-global warming scientists sometimes get equal billing.
advertisement
