Rob Peters of Paonia makes some valid points in his letter in the May 8 edition of The Daily Sentinel. But the crucial question is this: Is the warming predominantly due to natural or human causes?
Policies that limit greenhouse gas cannot influence the climate if the cause is natural. Common sense would say that the predominant cause is natural because the Earth’s climate has been warming and cooling for billions of years on many different time scales.
To summarize briefly: There has been a marked warming trend around the planet for over a century as best we can determine. The “little ice age” ended in about 1850. This warming trend was accompanied by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas that can help the air trap heat. This warming, according to the best evidence we have, appears to be caused by increased solar activity, and the CO2 increase is primarily due to the warming which causes the oceans to release more stored CO2 into the atmosphere. Over the years since 1998, the warming has ended and it has become slightly cooler.
The primary problem is that the focus and discussion is primarily based on dated science, on the 2001 IPCC report in most cases, or even previous reports. Al  Gore’s popular book, movie, and Powerpoint presentation, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is almost exclusively based on this report. The report is dated, included bad science (the Hockey Stick Chart), and has since been updated by the 2007 report, which reduces the dire predictions significantly.

Peters makes light of 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. Science is not done by majority vote. Only by reproducable experiment and open debate can questions be resolved. In this regard, it is unhelpful that global warming adherents try to demonize those with differing opinions.

We have a trifecta here of the global warming adherent’s biggest sins: demonize and silence anyone who disagrees, the lie that no scientists question this conclusion, and the portrayal of this as more than simply science, it is spiritual. In my opinion, these are the steps that need to be taken:
Build more nuclear power plants — the energy is cheap, clean, and reliable.
Continue research into alternate energy and power sources.
Keep using what resources we have, but with care for the future and renewal.
Develop what energy alternatives we can in appropriate areas like wind and geothermal.
Ignore people who want to block development of alternative energy, like Sen. Ted Kennedy, who thinks it would make his view of the ocean ugly.
Abandon the concept of carbon credits, which simply allow people to continue their behavior and pretend they are making a difference by buying indulgences.
Reject the hysteria and extreme predictions of doom for encouragement toward proper action and attitude.
In the end, each one of us had a responsibility to do what is right. We, each one, should look at our lives and determine where and how we can change — if at all — to better care for not only our world, but our neighbor and our families. The world won’t be a utopia, but we’ll all be better off if we just would be more concerned about what’s right rather than what we can get out of it.

In time, this global-warming hysteria will fade, but the need to do what we ought will never go away.

GEORGE E. CORT
Montrose

This entry was posted on Friday, May 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.