Learn to cope with climate, not control it -- themorningcall.com

An April 20 letter accurately pointed out that carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas, needed by plant life and that an increase in that gas will increase plant growth. That means more food to feed the world!

The problem is that people are blindly accepting the premise that carbon is causing global warming. The bigger issue is the mental giants in Congress who are going along with this nonsense. What makes anyone think they'd try to understand what some scientists, but definitely not all scientists, are saying about climate change. Over 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom hold PhDs disagree with the ''report'' found at climatescience.gov. Why not think about how to cope with any climate change that may or may not happen rather than pathetically trying to control the weather?

Thomas Bennett
Bethlehem

How will Garrett spin this? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

What’s changed, Pete? How come your government can now wait not a day, but a year longer to bring in its emissions trading scheme? How come there’s now time for excuses? How come for the long-term future of the environment, we shouldn’t act now?

Were you spinning then, or are you spinning now?

False choice, actually. Our Environment Minister was spinning then and is spinning now. This was always a fake fix to a fake crisis, with a fake deadline but very real costs..

WSJ Letter to the Editor: “Could it be that had the EPA included the dominant contributor [water vapor], the absurdity of this would become too obvious…?” | GORE LIED

The bottom line is that after adjusting for relative influence on greenhouse warming, water vapor is responsible for 95%, and CO2 for 3.5% of the greenhouse heat retention. When natural CO2 is subtracted, then the man-generated CO2 contributes just 0.117%. That is 0.117% of the total greenhouse effect, probably too small to detect any change elimination of this might impart.

The recent EPA announcement said it did not include water vapor because “it was not like the other gases” being regulated. “Not like”? Could it be that had the EPA included the dominant contributor, the absurdity of this would become too obvious if they had to begin the regulation of showers, clothes drying, hot tubs and lawn watering?

James W. Benefiel
Dunedin, Fla.