Editorial note (Profoundd): the operator submitted this scanned local-print debate piece on 2026-06-08. We are republishing both essays as they appeared in the original publication, preserving the editorial framing the original outlet used — a debate between two named individuals, with both sides argued in their own words. Profoundd does not endorse either position; we publish the debate as the original publication presented it so readers can evaluate each individual's argument on its own documented merits.
Profoundd note on significance: when a reader encounters a rebuttal like Journet’s, it is worth distinguishing which corrections actually change the conclusion of Voris’s argument from corrections that only correct a peripheral detail. Most of Journet’s critique is load-bearing — his points about greenhouse amplification, atmospheric density (Venus vs Mars), gas residence time, and lifecycle vs manufacturing emissions for electric vehicles all directly engage Voris’s actual claims and, if accepted, would shift the conclusion. One correction is peripheral: Voris wrote that photosynthesis is driven by ultraviolet light; Journet correctly notes it is driven by visible light, roughly 400–700 nm (chlorophyll a absorbs strongest at ~430 nm blue and ~662 nm red, which is why plants look green). Journet is right on the wavelength. But Voris’s actual argument is “photosynthesis happens, requires CO₂, supports life, therefore CO₂ is necessary for life and not a pollutant.” Substitute “sunlight” for “ultraviolet light” in Voris’s sentence and his argument is intact — the wavelength detail is not load-bearing for the conclusion. We flag this because the “correct a peripheral detail to dismiss the conclusion” pattern is one of the easiest ways for a reader to be led astray. Read Journet’s other points (greenhouse amplification, Venus/Mars density, gas residence time, EV lifecycle) as the substantive engagement; read the wavelength correction as accurate-but-peripheral, not as a refutation of the argument as a whole.
Editor's Note (original publication): We received the following essay on climate change recently and asked a local retired scientist to submit a rebuttal. Enjoy!
The Case for and Against Carbon
by Randy Voris
Carbon Dioxide Is Not the Problem
by Randy Voris
I'm not sure whether being educated in the sciences is a blessing or a curse. There is some misguided hysteria over carbon dioxide (CO₂), and trading in carbon credits has created billionaires who are selling nothing more than a fiction.
Certain natural substances are responsible for life on planet Earth. One of the life-giving processes is photosynthesis. Ultraviolet light from the sun activates chlorophyll in plants which then extract carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere thereby supplying oxygen to the atmosphere. Plants require water, sunlight, soil and carbon dioxide in order to grow. We require plant life in order to exist. Without photosynthesis there would be no life on Earth.
One hundred barrels of oil are required to produce one Tesla electric car whereas only ten barrels of oil are needed to manufacture one gas-powered Ford F150. Excavating massive amounts of soil is required to dig up the raw material to make one EV battery. Once the ore is extracted, toxic chemicals and thousands of gallons of water are needed to refine the ore into pure lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper to produce EV batteries.
The reality is that manufacturing electric vehicles causes significantly more environmental damage than making gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
Natural gas, 93% methane (CH₄), is the cleanest form of fuel known to exist. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and when burned leaves nothing behind. Nature's gift is attaching one carbon atom to four hydrogen atoms making natural gas safe to compress and/or transport in pipelines. The only byproduct of burning natural gas is carbon dioxide. As explained above, carbon dioxide being the key to photosynthesis is necessary for life and certainly not a pollutant.
Commercial greenhouses increase carbon dioxide to as much as 5,000 ppm (parts per million) to enhance yield. Considering that CO₂ does not become toxic until it reaches 30,000 ppm, at the current 420 ppm or 0.042% (forty-two thousandths of one percent) of the atmosphere, there is plenty of room to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere with the only consequence being greater crop harvests.
One would think that since not one of the alarmist's predictions of disappearing ice, feet of sea rise and soaring temperatures has materialized that we would become tired of those crying wolf when there is no wolf. For political reasons carbon dioxide has been demonized as a greenhouse gas driving climate change. The atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide. There is next to no greenhouse effect on Mars. With only 0.042% of Earth's atmosphere being CO₂, it's nonsense to believe a gas that rare would have any effect on climate even if it was a greenhouse gas, which it isn't.
Point out a time in Earth's history when the climate was not changing. You can't, because it is always changing and we have very little to do with it. Our contribution is mostly construction of asphalt and concrete which have significant thermal conductivity, absorbing heat during the day and emitting that heat back into the atmosphere at night.
Of the ten most abundant gases in Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide has the least thermal conductivity with water vapor (H₂O) having by far the greatest thermal conductivity. Water vapor is the only greenhouse gas of significance on Earth and without it this planet would be a ball of ice.
Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are our friends without which we would not exist.
What Science Tells Us About Randy's Claims
by Alan Journet, retired scientist
It is not possible in a few column inches to address in detail all of Randy's claims; I offer short broad-brush scientific responses to his claims.
Photosynthesis is assuredly a natural process that requires carbon dioxide and is critical to the ongoing success of life on the planet. But, contrary to Randy's assertion, it does not involve ultra-violet light (wavelength 100–400 nanometers) because that contains too much energy and would destroy plant cell DNA. Rather it involves sunlight in the visible range of wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometers. Contrary to the process Randy offers, photosynthesis is better described as extracting hydrogen from water and inserting this into carbon dioxide.
I acknowledge that Randy is correct that carbon dioxide, though in combination with other gases and the greenhouse effect, has produced a planet warm enough to allow the evolution of life as we know it. That warming occurred before the industrial revolution over millennia following the most recent ice age. The industrial revolution resulted from our learning how to use fossil fuels to drive machines. This allowed us to engage in less manual labor as machines took the load.
Since then, our use of fossil fuels to drive machines has successfully pumped substantial additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere pushing the temperature up from what it was. If we accept that pre-industrial revolution greenhouse gases, in even smaller concentrations than today, warmed the planet prior to that period, it is only logical to accept that increasing their concentration since then would cause further warming.
Randy accurately identifies the concentration at which carbon dioxide becomes toxic, but this has no relevance to the issue at hand. It may be that some commercial greenhouses increase carbon dioxide concentration to 5,000 parts per million (ppm) in an effort to stimulate plant growth. If they do, this would be pointless since carbon dioxide concentration starts to depress plant growth at about 2,000 ppm.
Randy is also correct in that carbon dioxide comprises 95% of the Martian atmosphere; Mars is, indeed, a frozen desert. However, the atmosphere of Venus, a super-hot desert, is 96% carbon dioxide. The difference is that the atmosphere of Mars is very sparse, while that of Venus is very dense. Carbon dioxide behaves as a greenhouse gas on both planets but has much greater effect in the denser atmospheres of Venus and Earth than in the sparse atmosphere of Mars.
While water vapor certainly is a greenhouse gas, it is absolutely not the only critical greenhouse gas. Importantly, water vapor molecules last in our atmosphere ten or fewer days while methane lasts for about a decade, nitrous oxide for a century, and carbon dioxide for centuries. Though having less warming potency than water vapor, the longevity of these other gases more than compensates for their lower warming capacity.
In discussing natural gas, Randy correctly reports that it is 95% methane but then discusses how burning hydrogen leaves nothing behind as though this is relevant to natural gas combustion. The point is that, when using natural gas, one is burning methane and this emits carbon dioxide. However, in addition, another major problem with natural gas is that its extraction, processing, and transmission result in methane emissions, and methane is much more potent as a warming agent than carbon dioxide. The result is that burning natural gas is equivalent climatically to burning coal.
I have no idea the source of the claim that a Tesla takes a hundred barrels of oil to build whereas a Ford F150 truck takes only ten. He is making entirely the wrong comparison; the data he provides may be accurate but they are irrelevant. The critical comparison is not the manufacturing emissions cost of a vehicle, but the overall lifecycle emissions. Thus, in terms of greenhouse gases, we have to total and compare the manufacturing emissions, the lifetime operating emissions and the disposal emissions. This assessment reveals electric vehicles always come out superior to internal combustion engine vehicles.
Randy claims that the predictions of disappearing ice, feet of sea level rise, and soaring temperatures suggested by climate science have not materialized. These unfortunate claims are repeated ad nauseam by climate science deniers without their apparently ever consulting and reporting the actual publicly available data. In reality, the reduction in extent of Arctic sea ice has been much greater than was indicated by model projections.
Note: Retired climate scientist Richard Lindzen and retired Physicist William Happer recently posted on the fossil fuel-funded Carbon Dioxide Coalition website a diatribe promoting many of the claims Randy offers, including several others. I submitted an extensive response to that, and it is available at: socan.eco/critique-of-lindzen-happer.
Source: Local print submission, scanned by Konica Minolta bizhub C284e on 2026-06-08. Profoundd received the scanned PDF from the operator and transcribed it via image OCR; archive copy preserved at the operator's local archive directory. The original publication's masthead is not visible in the submitted scan; the advertisement at the foot of page two for "truesouth SOLAR" suggests Southern Oregon distribution.
