Global warming good for the earth
EDITOR: Jason Walsh’s editorial (“The 97 Percent Solution,” Dec. 1) repeated that climate was moving toward calamity due to human causes supported by the questionable 97 percent consensus. There has been no harmful rise in CO2 rather the increased CO2 has been beneficial in increased plant growth and any increase in global temperature overall is benefiting human life. Your editorial promotes the calamitous models that have been rejected as fear mongering as opposed to science. Anthropogenic climate change is minuscule compared to the possibility of change rooted in natural factors: Volcanic activity, cosmic storms, ocean currents, slight sifting of the axis of the earth. Such natural changes have occurred and met with adaptation as they are far beyond the control of we mortals.
We tend to concentrate on change in climate as it may affect the developed nations and consider restrictions on energy production and use neglecting the serious effect of restricted energy to those billions living in energy and material poverty in Asia, Africa, South America. The needs of these populations are urgent and vital while reaching for a life beyond mere subsistence. Our depriving them of cheap fossil energy starves the “bottom billions” the necessity for life while only an inconvenience to us in the developed nations
Our concern should be electrical energy for the “bottom billions.”
What a fool believes
EDITOR: Who cares if 46 percent believe it or not? What difference will it make if anyone agrees with man-made climate change or not?
The results will be the same if 100 percent of your readers believe in man-made global warming.
The world will continue to warm. Whether it is due to man or climate or both, the world started warming at the end of the last ice age and as climatologists will also agree, the trend continues.
Instead, it seems your article is consistent with what most climate alarmists do: sit on a high horse and use condescending hyperbole such as your Sean Hannity example. Do you really think condescension brings people to your court? Did facetious and sarcastic comments like yours bring over some of those 46 percent? I doubt it.
Why? Because like most climate alarmists, you think you are the only purveyor of truth. The “97 percent of climate scientists” study is not the end of the debate. It’s an old argument with many articles as to why it is not correct.
Scientists lie. We know it. We have seen it, read their emails, and watched the IPCC admit their lies. We see scientists who agree with the sugar industry platform, oil platform and cigarette. They take money from those companies. So, you label them liars. What’s so different from a climate scientist who takes money from an environmental cause? Or a liberal government? Scientists are human and are liars or just plain wrong because they don’t know everything. Scientists have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Why are scientists that only hold your belief right? Read a climate scientist job description for an enviro organization and you’ll see they are expected to agree with man-made global warming. Impartial? Hardly.
For you to stake your entire position on humans who have a degree and an opinion is your mistake. Just like you may not have faith in a god (if you’re atheist), why do you ask me to have 100 percent faith in a person I don’t know?
I know the globe is warming, I know we are part of that. What I won’t agree on is that we are the main cause. Caves that humans once occupied are underwater now. That happened before man made the internal combustion engine. Islands sunk under the water long before we made industry. Those are facts. Global catastrophe predictions have been made and have been wrong. Global models are wrong and even with past facts known, can’t recreate the effect. Being off by 0.2 degrees C is a big deal.
So, if you had 100 percent of your readers agree with you, would that stop the man-made warming? No. China puts coal powered plants online constantly. For every one we close, China more than makes up for that.
Will your Sonoma readers give up cars? Trucks? Oil heaters? Tankers? Produce production? No. Keep trying to get 100 percent agreement on this issue. It will change nothing except to make you more and more frustrated.
Editor’s note: Thanks for weighing in J.A. Allow me to respond. To suggest that scientists are capable of lying – just as anyone from all sorts of professions may occasionally tell a whopper – is one thing. But your argument is based on the supposition that thousands of independent scientists from all over the world are lying about human-caused climate change – which not only begs credulity, but is practically a conspiratorial impossibility. To compare those scientists to the “scientists” employed by the cigarette or sugar industries is a false equivalency that, if reached whenever science draws conclusions we wish weren’t true, would give us license to deny every scientific finding since the Age of Enlightenment. As to your question of whether 100 percent acceptance of human-caused climate change would make a difference – why of course it would! It would mean informed voters would elect informed policymakers who would enact informed legislation regulating CO2 emissions. Now that’s an idea worth warming to. – J.W.
EDITOR: Please see that the local police get thanked profusely for apprehending Christopher Harris before he had a chance to commit mayhem. Let’s hope the judicial system has the courage and will to put this dangerous and bad actor away for a long, long time.