Ben Carson is criticized for downplaying the man-made global warming threat that the government is so worried about. So, who’s right?

The government and some scientists have told us for years to beware of global warming (now called climate change) due to an increase in the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The assumption is that the levels of CO2 increased because of the industrial revolution.

Temperatures and CO2 levels have increased since the industrial age. Thank goodness. Prior to the industrial age, from the 1350s to 1800, we were in, what is called, The Little Ice Age. (See Energy and Environment, Vol. 18, No. 7-8, 2007.) It was frigid outside and, in the late 1700s when the first American factory began, we wanted more warmth.

Since the industrial age, temperatures and CO2 levels have increased. These levels come from various sources, some as innocuous as the rotting of trees. However, it is assumed that factories emitting CO2 must be to blame. Therefore, we call this a man-made disaster.

If the increased CO2 levels were to blame, as the government purports, for the increase in temperature after the Industrial Revolution, what were the CO2 levels before the Industrial Revolution?

Temperatures, from the 800s – 1300s, increased steadily. In fact, this era was called the Little Warm Period. Then, temperatures decreased, as we have said, to the Little Ice Age, ending in 1800. All this happened prior to the Industrial Revolution, as the first factory in America was designed in the late 1770s.

Yet, during this temperature fluctuation prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 remained constant.

If it is “settled” that CO2 is the culprit from the Industrial Revolution and on, why don’t we see a lack of CO2 affecting the environment prior to the Industrial Revolution? Obviously, global temperatures must be affected by some other factor.

Ben Carson is correct in not subscribing to the politicization of the environmental issues, which can lead to disastrous policies, like the Clean Power Plan. This would force factories to radically reduce CO2 emissions. This would cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs! That is an example of an ideologically-driven policy that makes no sense.

Thank goodness Ben Carson is looking out for our jobs, rather than correcting a problem that may not need to be corrected.