Scientists do not agree on global warming

Letters to the editor Copyright 1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch December 12, 1998

Regarding the Dec. 4 editorial, "Enough hot air," most scientists do not agree that global warming is real and dangerous. Some 17,000 U.S. scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, which would require the United States to cut emissions by 35 percent by 2010 (based on the current rate of increase).

CO2 will not increase to 70 percent by the year 2020; the rate of increase has dramatically slowed for reasons scientists are trying to figure out. Last year, for example, the increase was just 40 percent of that projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Some research recently published in the journal Science speculates that the CO2 may be getting absorbed by the increased growth of forests and vegetation. In other words, "fragile" nature may be taking care of it without any help from international bureaucrats.

The warm winter we are experiencing here in the United States (in contrast to the Europeans who are being hit with one blizzard out of the Arctic after another) is due to the La Nina, which has pushed the jet stream further north than usual. All of this was forecast by scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration some months ago. Even the November issue of Reader's Digest mentioned it.

There is no scientific evidence that El Ninos/La Ninas are in any way related to a warming of the global climate, and the forecast is that temperatures will return to more seasonal norms sometime between now and March.
 
Candace Crandall
 
The Science & Environmental
 
Policy Project
 
Fairfax, Va.

The global warming theory blames developed nations for fouling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide "greenhouse gas." The environmentalists' solution to this fictitious "problem" is for industrialized nations to throttle back energy use to a notch above idle. Or nations such as the United States could buy "emissions credits" from Third World nations, allowing America to stay in business by paying Third World nations not to industrialize - in effect a global program similar to government payments to farmers not to raise hogs.

Nearly every life form on Earth feeds from a food chain that begins when water and carbon dioxide combine during photosynthesis to form sugar. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is essential for life. Carbon dioxide feeds the world, including plants, animals and people.

Carbon dioxide from industrial nations circles the globe and enriches the air, increasing plant growth. Forests are now growing more wood and healthier trees. Crops are now doing better and so are pasture lands for livestock. We industrial nations have provided this free service to the world's rich and poor alike for many decades. But do Third World nations thank us? No, they demand that we pay them for "emissions credits" so we can keep on providing them with free plant food.

What about those island nations that demand payment because "global warming" may raise sea level? Coral reefs encircle and protect many of those islands from wave erosion. The hard part of coral and other shelled creatures, such as oysters and clams, is the mineral Aragonite, which is made of calcium carbonate. Industrialized nations are providing additional carbon dioxide for the carbonate part, helping Mother Nature build protective reefs that would cost trillions of dollars to construct from concrete.

Add the value of increased agricultural productivity to the value of island protection, and the industrialized nations' carbon dioxide contribution to Third World economies probably exceeds $ 12 trillion annually. It's time we begin charging for this service.
 
William F. Jud
 
Fredericktown, Mo.
 
Let me add a few BTUs to the global warming advocates.

I'm sick of hearing all the scare tactics employed by those global warming "experts."

Many eons ago when the planet was in the grip of an ice age (mini or otherwise), just who got the blame as the planet began to warm? Who got the blame when the glaciers began to retreat? I find it hard to believe that industrial pollution was contributing factor. Any reasonable person could conclude that the automobile posed no significant threat. You'd have to rule out hairspray, barbeque smoke or anything else we may consume or utilize.
 
Elmer J. Macke
 
St. Louis

Loriee Evans' Dec. 4. Commentary article about the big iceberg depends - as does most of the global warming scare - upon the transformation of ignorance into fear.

Ice shelves grow outward from Antarctica until they are broken by the action of waves and tides. It is of no particular importance whether what breaks off is one huge piece or several smaller ones. The Ronne Ice Shelf, from which this particular berg broke free, can be expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, to produce an iceberg the size of Delaware "roughly every 30 years or so." It has presumably been doing so for some thousands of years.

The mean annual temperature of the Ronne Ice Shelf is something less than -25 degrees C. The mean summer temperature is something less than -20 degrees C. Believe me, at such temperatures the ice is not melting away.

Relax, everybody. The world as we know it isn't coming to an end because of global warming. It's just that some people can't get through the day without a touch of hysteria to liven things up.
 
William L. Richards
 
Maryland Heights

Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.

---

Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.

Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.