Much supportive evidence about climate change
An article in the November 2009 Scientific American shows it is technically feasible for the U.S. and world to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2030 by switching to renewable energy sources. In the process, we would save trillions on unreliable foreign oil, become a more secure nation, and conserve limited hydrocarbon reserves for future generations. Too much of that oil money is siphoned off to fund radical madrassa schools that breed international terrorism.
Last year’s Tribune-Star Flashpoint reply by Craig Shumaker points out our declining fossil fuel reserves. Indiana’s manufacturing capability and engineering and scientific expertise make it a favored place to design and manufacture renewable energy equipment. Subsidies for fossil fuel exploration could be diverted to kick-start the process. We could then export energy efficient technology and renewable energy devices, instead of importing them. It is a business maxim that those who get to the future first, win!
The Scientific American article concludes that the greatest obstacle is lack of political will. The reader can contact Sens. Bayh or Lugar or Rep. Ellsworth and express support for renewable energy development.
Now to respond to the three latest letters opposing AGCC (anthropogenic global climate change). None of the letters provides a single reference or source. When evaluated from a peer-reviewed climate science perspective, I cannot find one correct statement of fact regarding AGCC in any of the letters. One also notices a persistent pattern of attacking the most prominent climate scientists and AGCC spokespersons. I warned the readers in a 2008 letter to the editor to expect these occurrences. The incorrect assertions in the letters are too numerous to reply to in a newspaper format, but I wish to respond to two of them.
It is stated that emission reduction efforts will result in only 0.1 degree reduction in either 50 or 100 years. Charts in the peer-reviewed IPCC report indicate that doing nothing will result in global temperatures rising by as much as 10 degrees F above preindustrial levels by 2090-2099. Annual investing of only 0.12 percent of global GDP will limit the rise to a challenging but more manageable 4 F.
One incorrect statement is twice made in these general terms: “climate scientists have ignored the fact climate change is normal throughout the planet’s history.” Climate scientists have extensively studied past climate changes. They conclude climate changes of the past 2 million years or so have been initiated by variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt, and to a lesser extent by solar variations. The current climate change is being caused by additional greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion.
In past climate cycles, CO2 concentrations have averaged 180 ppm during glacial periods and 280 ppm during interglacial periods. It is now approaching 400 ppm. During past climate changes, there were not 7 billion humans crowded into Earth’s habitable regions. Now there are more of us to perish, and our options to migrate elsewhere are limited.
Supporting information is from Web sites for NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; RealClimate.org; and New Scientist — Climate Myths; David Archer’s book “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Climate”; the book “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” by James Hogan and Richard Littlemore; and the above two references.
— Paul Wassel
Terre Haute
Explanation needed for attack letter
I am writing to express my disappointment in your newspaper for printing a letter from a Shirley A. Thomas, Brazil, in which she repeatedly attacks me personally because she disagrees with my position on government takeover of health care in the U.S.
As far as I know, Ms. Thomas does not know me or anything about me, but she attacks me on several levels, personally and professionally.
I feel somewhat sorry for Ms. Thomas, as she seems to me to be very bitter and hateful, but I will not dignify her uninformed opinions with a reply, except to say that she obviously has little or no knowledge of how the health care system functions (an example: insurance companies and Medicare tell us what they are going to pay us, no matter what we charge).
My complaint is with your newspaper. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you have stated in the past that you do not publish letters with personal attacks against individuals. Is it OK to attack someone personally if you disguise your letter as a rebuttal?
At this point, I am assuming you just slipped up in printing the above letter, and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I have told you in e-mail correspondence in the past, I have found your paper to be among the better ones in terms of fairness to conservative writers given your mostly liberal bent, and I would hope, therefore, that you would print something on the order of an explanation or apology in this matter. I wish you would also restate your position on letters of this type.
— James E. Stephens, M.D.
Brazil
