Is global warming debate over?

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

I think it is obvious that Ben Visser is a right-wing conservative and being more mainstream myself, I find many of his articles quite irritating. His recent article about global warming, however, was over-the-top and frankly offensive (Global warming debate stifles progress).

His clumsy “shot-gun” analogy about the scientific data concerning climate change was very counterproductive. There is no longer any debate among credible scientists about the validity of global warming and the contribution of burning fossil-fuels exacerbating it. The debate is over!

The only uncertainty among scientists is the exact degree to which humans are contributing to it and exactly how long it will take and how much more temperature rise it will take before disaster happens. For example, they have recently discovered that the vast tundra is starting to melt in our polar regions, creating small lakes where there was ice before. At this point the uncertainty is exactly how much temperature rise will be required to thaw and release vast amounts of now frozen methane, which is roughly 25 times as bad as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Anyway, about the only thing that was factual in Mr. Visser’s article was when he admitted that he did “not have a clue.”

The Bush Administration which, as we all know, represented the oil and coal industries, tried to obfuscate the science of global warming for eight precious years during which progress could have been made. It is very analogous to the tobacco industry. By the early 1950s there had been done many scientific studies which proved that smoking was extremely deadly and addictive. The tobacco industry bought the politicians and came up with their own “scientific” studies to show that smoking might even be good for you and they did everything to confuse and cast doubt on the dangers of smoking. For the next 40 years millions of people died and millions more started smoking (who are not all dead yet). Finally, about 20 years ago, the tide turned and the tobacco companies were sued for hundred of billions of dollars and it became obvious to the masses that smoking was deadly because family members and famous actors had died from it.

Just suppose (for the non-believers) that global warming is a reality. Wouldn’t it be prudent to try to do something about it before it is too late? Or, do you think we should sit around and debate the scientific data while Rome (and our planet) burns?

Peter Mortensen, New Cuyama, Calif.

Comments

  1. Catherine French says

    Having worked with a number of Ph D scientists at the University of California, I say that there are many limitations put on these GW theories by the scientists themselves. Many of them only consider a limit number of causes (manmade) and usually disregard or minimize Natural causes. They also don’t communicate with scientists in other disciplines (geochemists, solar scientists, astrophysicists, etc.). Thus, they have made (and forced) their scientific models to purposely blame humans a lot more than Natural causes / factors.

  2. Mark Sill says

    In science, the “debate” is never over! That is the nature of science. A theory or hypothesis is developed, then it’s up to scientists to test the hypothesis for validity. It’s not about “concensus”, that word has no purpose in science. If the theory can be proven false, then the debate is over and a new theory must be constructed. Science is more corrupt today than ever with their paychecks printed by federal grants, so of course your going to continue to push your theory, then jump on the concensus bandwagon to further the need for more research increasing your pay. I’m all for keeping our air clean for breathing, but I refuse to stop breathing to please this political agenda.

  3. says

    Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too.

  4. E Rosiak says

    A famous author said that “Science is the cure for politics, and when science becomes political we are lost”. The Global Warming debate shows this to be true. Looking at the real numbers it is clear that the long term trend is that the earth is cooling, not warming. It is also true that weather has been changing. The real debate is why – the politicians would have us believe we did it, therefore we should pay for it in a form of taxes. No surprise there. Those who say there is no debate are part of the politically motivated science community, and they have lost their validity.

  5. says

    The most revealing words, that referenced the opposition to your argument, were “non-believers”. This put the discussion in the same category as religion where the only “facts” are “opinions” of people written eons ago. Recently closer examination of the global warming “facts” are looking more like “opinions”. So now each side is trying to convert the other believers….fat chance!

  6. Terri Sipantzi says

    Oh please. This guy has been drinking from the global warming cool-aid for far too long. If the global warming “science” is done then why do global warming scientists feel the need to lie and cheat on their research? And why are they so unwilling to debate “the science.” Hello!!! The earth has been in a cooling trend for the last several years and some of the same scientists that told us the glaciers were melting are now telling us we are headed for an ice age. And why do you think the politicians are now starting to use the terms “climate change” instead of global warming? It is so they can push their radical left wing agenda regardless of which way the climate “changes.”

    The global warming crowd “knows what they believe” and don’t want to be bothered with the facts.

    Cheers,
    Terri

  7. says

    I believe EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it best, “cap and trade would reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree by 2050. Sure man has an effect on the temperatures but the only way to stop it is to stop living and give up your families standard of living. Please remember it is called global warming and a little less than one half of the worlds population only has one thing to worry about… where is that next meal? The environmental solution is to plant 59 million acres of trees in the bread basket of the United States. With so many of the worlds people starving to death that is just immoral, just immoral. I just came back from China the smog is terrible. My daughter had to work in India for a few days and the haze from the burning cattle dung burned her eyes. Artic ice core record going back to 900,000 years show continuous 1,500 warming cycles. Where I live in Illinois a glacier stood 14,000 years ago. What human activity made that melt?

  8. Ken White says

    In response to your article “Is global warming debate over”. It certainly is in my mind. Every time I see or read someone proclaiming that a debate is over, it isn’t or else they wouldn’t be trying so hard to have the last say. Cap and Trade is really Cap and Tax and we are all going to pay for this made-up problem in higher energy costs. If the science is so sound why do the proponents of global warming feel like they have to act like bullies on a second grade playground playing king of the mound. If the science is sound we don’t need people screaming at the top of their lungs that the debate is over.

  9. Don Martel says

    What Mr. Mortensen demonstrated in his letter to the the editor was the role politics and emotion play in the global warming debate. The debate is not over when the underlying science of global warming is undermined by “e-mailgate” and some of the hyperbolic statements made by proponents of global warming. Any time substances are introduced into the environment there should be concern but personal attacks and political rants play no part in the process.
    Whether global warming proves to be directly attributable to fossil fuels, partly attributable, or not at all, we need to realize that adding combustion byproducts into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. Leave the politics aside and strive for solid science and solid solutions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *