Dear A.M. Costa Rica:
Right on Dr. Cocker! If the gentlemen are so sure that CO2 is destroying the planet, then tell us this. What is the effect of CO2 on plants? How much do they require for optimal growth? What is the average CO2 available for plants here in Costa Rica during the daylight hours? The rest of the world? Would the increase of plant growth be good thing for the planet? So, why would we want to reduce CO2 levels?
There never was a scientific consensus on either global warming or the cause. The people who are claiming that a consensus exists are lying, and they are the same people that are telling you that global warming exists and man is the cause.
The original editorial touched on a key point, and that is that within the scientific community there lies the incentive to get published/recognized and that affects the science.
Unfortunately, that is the tip of the iceberg. Science at the university level in the U.S. is paid for and controlled by corporations. It’s quite simple, if you conduct studies that will benefit the corporate sugar daddy, you will be published and rewarded with more research money. If you conduct studies that reveal things that will not benefit the corporation, they will not see the light of day because the corporate sponsor of that university’s research department owns all the research and they will determine what is released and what isn’t.
This is the same system of science that has told us for over 60 years that cholesterol causes heart disease and, after slowly backtracking on that claim with by making a difference between good and bad cholesterol in recent years, is now in full retreat with a number of mainstream health/physician organizations just going public in the last few weeks, claiming that there is no evidence of a connection to heart disease and that cholesterol is a necessary nutrient.
Until global warming, the biggest myth hoisted on the people. Like Peter Townsend said: “don’t be fooled again”