Posted 4 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
I would like to respond to Earle Mullen’s letter published July 9 stating categorically that global warming in no myth. Although I don’t have two degrees in physics or 35 years in industrial research and development, I believe with a little common sense I can respond.
The Miami Herald reported that Noel Brown, director of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming,” saying that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels. Unfortunately for those who want this to be true, the article was written on July 5, 1989. I wonder just how long this “climate crisis,” as Al Gore puts it, is going to last?
Speaking of Al Gore, here is a man who is the founder and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, which is devoting $300 million in advertising to pressure politicians into voting for climate change legislation. At the same time, he is also the chairman of something called Generation Investment Management, which stands to profit handsomely from the actions of governments that succumb to the pressure from the other group he heads. Surely no one would accuse anybody for having money and politics involved here.
Has anyone noticed that you no longer hear the term “global warming” so much anymore, but now it is called “climate change”? What’s with that? The inconvenient truth is that, from everything that I have read, temperatures have been falling for the last several years. In fact, the people who have been correlating the activity of the sun; sunspots, solar flares, and the such to the weather here on Earth have been saying that we are in a cooling cycle, which pretty much agrees with what we are seeing around the world.
Check out articles about how cold the fall and winter have been down in the southern hemisphere this year. New Zealand’s National Climate Centre reports that the temperature has been the lowest ever in some areas and all areas are lower than normal. It snowed in North Dakota in June. Here in Grand Junction, how long has it been since we have recorded so few 90 degree days in June?
If the IPCC’s computer modeling was correct should it not be predicting this kind of weather? After all, it is just computer modeling, which is programmed by human beings who would never have a reason, like money, for a desired outcome. Right?
Should we work to reduce pollution? You bet. Should we look for solutions to curb population growth and discover better methods of sustaining all life on this planet? Yes. But to impose a tax on carbon dioxide based on a hoax is crazy. Especially in a time when the economy is in its current condition and it has been estimated that 2.5 million jobs will be lost to the cap-and-trade bill. I know supporters will say that green jobs will offset some of this job loss, but can we really count our chickens that fast. Add to the fact that India, China, and many other countries are not going to follow suit, it makes no sense to impose such a tax.
I too worry about my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren who would have to pay for such folly.
Michael Higgins
Grand Junction
15 Responses to “More myths on global warming”
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whether you call it global warming or climate change, it refers to the overall climate, not a difference in a local area. From what I’ve read, the change in climate will cause North America to be wetter than it normally is due to shifts in Pacific ocean currents. The fact that we had an abnormally cool June is an indicator that things are changing. Global warming/climate change does not mean that everywhere will get warmer at the same time. It means that the average global temperature changes. Some areas might be lower, some higher but the overall trend is upwards.
And whether you accept global warming or not, glaciers and ice all over the world is melting faster than it is being replenished. In the last several years, sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by an area the size of Alaska. That is not seasonal ice, but the thick ice that lasts through the summer. The Northwest passage has been open for the past two years, for the first time in recorded history.
Something is changing the climate. Whether man is the cause, part of the cause or has nothing to do with it may be debatable, but the climate is changing.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Something is changing the climate. Whether man is the cause, part of the cause or has nothing to do with it may be debatable, but the climate is changing.”
And until it is definitiveley determined that man IS the cause, we need to stop trying to impose restrictive conditions that are extraordinarily expensive, and may not solve anything, particularly at a time when we are already in deep economic doodoo.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just curious, bullish —
What “restrictive conditions” are you referring to, that you consider dubious in effectiveness, and extraordinarily expensive?
Seriously, just looking for some examples.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish,
What if they will solve the problem, but we wait too long?
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon: “What “restrictive conditions” are you referring to, that you consider dubious in effectiveness, and extraordinarily expensive?”
The cheapest form of energy is carbon based.
Coal is the cheapest raw material that can be used to produce electricity. Great strides have been made to significanly reduce emissions from coal burning. What has not been done is reduce the emission of CO2 and it is for that reason that believers in man-made global warming want to do away with coal and replace it with renewable forms of energy which, while abundant, are much more expensive to use.
Cap and Trade is a restrictive bill that would tax the use of coal. It will have a considerable negative impact on our economy and would not be necessary if those restrictions solved nothing.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scot: “bullish, What if they will solve the problem, but we wait too long?”
I believe that science will progress to the point where a more definitive answer ro the issue will be obtained before too many years pass.
And besides, we have already discussed the fact that as long as China and India refuse to participate in the same CO2 reduction efforts being imposed on us, whatever we do will not be of enough help to avoid the disaster that man-made global warming believers are predicting.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So we should do nothing just because it MIGHT not do any good?
That will be small comfort as we look at the good economy we’ve protected as the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish- thanks for the response.
So, you prefer the procurement and use of coal over renewable forms of energy (I take it you’re talking about solar, wind, etc) ? Is this based solely on immediate economic concerns?
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “So we should do nothing just because it MIGHT not do any good?”
So we should do something, no matter how much of an impact it will have on an already horrendous economy, even if it is of no consequence?
You want to tell the 10% or 15%, who are now, or later will be unemployed, that they are out of work, in part because we want to make sure that, even if we have insufficient evidence that global warming is not man made, and even though if we do all we can it still will be futile because China and India is not going along, that we still want to put a heavy burden on the economy so WE feel that we have done SOMETHING?
I don’t think you can sell that Scott.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon: “So, you prefer the procurement and use of coal over renewable forms of energy (I take it you’re talking about solar, wind, etc) ? Is this based solely on immediate economic concerns?”
Yes.
But let me follow that up by saying that I am open minded on this. If I was convinced that global warming was man made, and that not doing something about it would bring about a catastrophe, then there is no price I would pay to stop it. And, by the way, I don’t think anyone else would either, including the Indians and the Chinese.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
You seem to be assuming that anything we do will have the effects you describe. I don’t agree with that assumption.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “You seem to be assuming that anything we do will have the effects you describe. I don’t agree with that assumption.”
1. Do you believe that if the Chinese and Indians refuse to participate, anything we do will solve the problem?
2. Do you believe that switching from a low cost source of energy to a high cost source of energy has little, if any, impact on the economy?
3. Do you believe that if yor answer to #2 is that a switch will have little economic impact, to what do you attribute the very narrow vote for paasage in the Congress and the very tough road that Cap and Trade faces in the Senate?
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
billish,
1. Solve, no. Help, yes, and our solutions may be able to be applied to those countries more easily if they are well developed already. Yes, that means we will be bearing the brunt of the R&D costs, but that is pretty much a given anyway.
2. No, but you seem to be using today’s situation and projecting it into the future. I am not advocating halting all carbon-use today and immediately switching to alternate forms of energy tomorrow. These alternate sources of energy are high-cost today, but that will not always be the case.
3. N/A. See above.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I believe our views are pretty close. I am all in favor of conducting ther R&D necessary to be prepared to implement a solution should it be needed.
Posted July 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree, but I also think we should implement that solution as soon as it is feasible, even if it turns out that man is not a major cause of global warming.
But as I’ve said before, my bet is that we’ll have lunchbox-sized fusion reactors in every house before that is completely clear or the alternative energy sources are viable.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.