Dear Editor
Re: [Not pretty place, Langley Advance Times, Dec. 13].
I thank Trevor Nicklason for his rebuttal to my letter explaining the benefits of CO2, however his creative manipulation of the science data is invalid.
He asks if you would want to live in a world like the Cambrian period some 500 million years ago when CO2 was over 10 times greater. He then conflates an apocalyptic doomsday scenario where the oceans rise 65 metres (216 feet) and relates it with our life today.
In many time periods of earths history, CO2 levels and global temperatures did not correlate but went in opposite directions.
Only in one time period approximately 300 million years ago were both CO2 and global temperatures as low as they are today.
https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/heat-fell-from-1930s-peak-co2-is-greening-earth-marine-life-began-in-10x-higher-co2-and-climate-d10d3c6c6d06
It’s irrelevant to our lives what levels the oceans were 500 million years ago. However it is curious to relate sea levels since the last ice age approximately 20,000 years ago when land at this 49th latitude in Canada was under one to two kilometres of ice.
Since the last ice age the oceans rose about 130 m (400+ feet) then leveled off approximately 7,000 years ago.
For 7,000 years sea levels have been stable, rising slightly and trending steady at approximately the same rate on the graphs. And yet the warmists manipulate data and deceptively exaggerate the rate of rise in order to blame the last hundred years on man’s CO2 industrial progress.
Carbon is the basis for all life on earth. CO2 is the source for that carbon. All living things that are not plants, rely on the plants for their survival.
The three basic ingredients are light (photosynthesis), water and CO2.
Natural gas and oil are from fossilized (calcium carbonate) marine organisms. Coal is from land based fossilized vegetation (trees, etc.)
Earths historical long record shows atmospheric CO2 has been declining and is perilously close to 150 ppm which cannot support plant life.
lt’s an injustice to create political policies and societal costs based on events that cannot be justified by science, (the so-called precautionary principle).
How did we ever get to a place where our educational system is brainwashing people to think that the temperature of the planet can be controlled by giving the government more money?
Roland Seguin, Langley
