The word carbon is becoming so hyped and overused these days that it is losing its meaning.

We are told by types like Al Gore and David Suzuki, the self-appointed Pope and Archbishop of the “Church of Climatology,” that we need to reduce our “carbon footprint” or the element will wipe out humanity as we know it.

What you won't hear from either of the two or much of the environmental movement is that perhaps the earth isn't warming and is actually cooling, or that, if the earth is warming, it could be due to changes in the sun and not a result of tailpipe exhaust or cow flatulence.

The fact of the matter is, climate has always changed, and it always will. Contrary to popular belief, the Earth did not have a stable climate prior to the industrial revolution.

The only thing we can do about climate change is to prepare for it, whether it be cooling or warming.

Despite popular reports, there is not a consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming as a direct result of humans and their “carbon footprints.”

Carbon dioxide is not the bad guy former U.S. vice president Al Gore makes it out to be in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

Carbon dioxide is as vital to human life as oxygen. Plants and trees absorb it and in turn give off more oxygen as a result.

It is estimated that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for only 26 per cent of the total greenhouse effect. And only 25 per cent of that 26 can be attributed to humans, according to James Cook University Prof. Robert M. Carter.

The problem isn't carbon so much as it is toxic chemicals. Suzuki would rather tax the individual, through carbon tax schemes, than pressure oil companies and auto makers to give the world a non-oil option for transportation.

How can drivers be faulted when they are given no other alternative? Do law enforcement officers only arrest drug users and leave drug dealers alone?

The industrialists oppose the climate changers, not on scientific grounds, but simply so they can continue to produce oil and gas, unimpeded, in the pursuit of temporal financial gain.

Both sides just aren't getting it. We certainly do need to do something about all the toxic chemicals being pumped into the environment, but the answer is not a carbon tax or apocalyptic fear mongering, nor is an outright denial of any environmental threats from the opposing side.

Man-made global warming is unproven. However, man-made global contamination is proven.

Where were Suzuki and Gore when the EVI (electric vehicle) mysteriously disappeared from the markets in the 1990s?
They focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through carbon taxes but instead they should focus on eliminating oil-based industries and oil-dependent technology.

Reduce or eliminate, which sounds better?

It will certainly be interesting to see if and how the climate changers respond to “Climategate.” In November, hackers cracked servers at the University of East Anglia in England. The emails, posted on blogs around the world, showed correspondences between climate scientists who discussed fudging scientific data involving atmospheric temperatures.

One such email spoke of a “nature trick” that could be used to hide the evidence for declining global temperatures.

The next few months should be interesting as the Copenhagen Summit draws to an end and the world learns more about the climate change debate.

Either way, both sides of the debate are missing the bigger picture, meanwhile Joe Q. Citizen suffers the most and gets stuck with the carbon bill.

-- John O'Connor