Letters to the Editor about global warming
A special collection of letters on the global-warming debate.
Readers on climate-change doubts
In response to the Monitor series, "Global-warming skeptics: a closer look": I think climate-change skeptics get more than a fair shake, even equal time. But this isn't a matter of "equal time." The overwhelming opinion of scientists worldwide is that the human side is pushing the change and the evidence is unequivocal. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is persuasive, but the press has concentrated too much on the reaction and too little on the substance and the consensus.
It's like a debate with Holocaust deniers. Do they deserve equal time? They may have some isolated evidence that questions pieces of the conventional wisdom, but is that sufficient to conclude that maybe the Holocaust didn't happen?
For a minute, I thought that analogy was extreme. But consider the effects of global climate change. Consider not just higher sea levels and warmer temperatures, which seem as if they could be accommodated over time, but also extreme weather. Consider drought emergencies, which curtail people's access to fresh water for even mundane chores. Consider the destitution of communities as people who can leave, leave.
But kudos to the Monitor for sustained attention to this critical issue. I'm reminded of God's promise to Noah. Are we Noah? What must we do?
Bruce Scott
Frankfort, Ky.
I am a retired scientist and attended the annual American Association of the Advancement of Science meeting in San Francisco when the panel presented the result that humans contributed significantly to global warming. Like any real, nonpolitical scientist, I keep an open mind. But on this, I'm really skeptical.
For one, studies have found a correlation between sunspots and cloud cover. And because scientific models cannot predict cloud cover over a major river such as the Missouri, it is no wonder they cannot predict the river flow even one day in advance with any degree of accuracy. Global climate change must be predicted at least a decade in advance, so it strains credibility to think that global warming can be predicted a century hence.
In addition, the rise in observed CO2 levels can be the result – and not the cause of – warming. Until water vapor can be predicted as the most significant greenhouse gas, better models need to be developed.
And the correlation of clouds with sunspots needs to be explained first.
Rishard Procunier
Danville, Calif.
Page: 1 | 2 
