Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Don’t wait to act on global warming
Friday, July 3, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
The controversy over climate change ultimately lies in the mathematics of balance. The Earth and moon orbit the sun in a relative state of balance. Too much gravitational pull or too little, and Earth is no more. Math behind carbon emissions is measurable and verifiable. The result of the effect on the environment is, however, hypothetical.
As human-produced pollutants enter our environment, the math will show ever-increasing detriment to human and animal well-being. Fish consumption advisories are increasing, freshwater is decreasing, birth defects from chemicals are increasing, animal species are decreasing, and so on. These are all measurable effects of human-created industrialization.
Yes, one major volcanic eruption could decimate the environment; one large asteroid impact could have global consequences. Yes, if we conserve resources, costs will go up to maintain economic balance. Yes, the cost of going green will be expensive.
The math will show that we are living way out of balance with the natural environment and, as with Earth’s orbit, balance is critical. Measurable carbon emissions clearly demonstrate a major imbalance, and the consequences are unknown.
I say believe in the math and let’s all try to work harder for balance. Waiting for the prophecy of global warming or cooling to materialize is naive.
Discussion: 35 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Joe Perry: Steven Tyler has quit Aerosmith
- Live Main Event blog: Cada and Moon set to square off heads-up
- Judge dismisses suits blaming Las Vegas Sands for stock drop
- Freddie Roach talks tough; Manny Pacquiao backs it up
- Commercial development in Las Vegas grinding to a halt, analyst says
- Strip sign-lighting ceremony set for Monday
- County considers suing over travel Web site room taxes
- Metro identifies officers, sergeants in 2 fatal struggles
- Temperature to hit 80 today in Las Vegas
- On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style
Blogs
The Kats Report
Life in the Limelight: Wayne Newton (1 Comment)
Politics: Ralston's Flash
An entire campaign in one mail piece for Harry Reid (2 Comments)
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010 (1 Comment)
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (16 Comments)
Elsewhere
Fontainebleau suit takes aim at Soffer empire (10 Comments)
Mono puts date for Lesnar title defense in question
Calendar »
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
- 12 Thu
-
76 Trombones + 4 concert at Artemus Ham Hall
Artemus Ham Hall at UNLV | 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
-
The Smothers Brothers at The Orleans Showroom
The Orleans Showroom
-
Abbacadabra at The Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Zowie Bowie's Vintage Vegas Show at Monte Carlo
Lance Burton Theater
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Steven,
It is brave of you to get your letter published, you do know of course that you are in for some stick. Believers in global warming, or climate change, in your state, and the effect it is having on the climate of the world, are about as many as snowflakes on a hot july afternoon in Vegas.
What you say is true, and if nothing is done in the few years ahead, we will most likely pass the first tipping point. Tipping points are times when the climate tips over an irreversable limit of greenhouse gases, or temperature increases, and in fact many scientists believe that the world has already passed several tipping points. At this moment CO2 emissions are about 390ppm, and total greenhouse gas emissions are at almost 450ppm. Even during the past 650 thousand years, when we have had 4 or 5 huge natural climate changes, greenhouse gases were never higher than 285ppm, so in less than 150 years, we, mankind have managed to increase GHG levels from 285ppm to almost 450ppm, all thanks to the burning of fossil fuels, and nothing else, not even sun spots, or earth tilts or wobbles.
There is no global warming. It is a huge scam attempting to extract trillions of dollars from the American citizens.
Obama has shut up Alan Carlin of the EPA who has questioned OBAMA's global warming endangerment argument. EPA's Al McGartland told him his work could not be presented.
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/25/c...
The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 "Fourth Assessment" report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments.
The United Nations has never been a factual organization.
Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.
Of major concern is the lack of quality control and credibility of the 1221 station temperature instrumentation program, and reliability of data going back hundreds of years.
Global climate model are very undeveloped, in particular manmade greenhouse are not statistically a factor, and the model confidence level is well outside the error band for any other acceptable science.
A common criticism of global climate models, particularly for predicting the coming decades, has been that they only include factors, such as solar radiation but not he multi-year suns solar flares, while neglecting internal climate variability that arises from natural changes within the system, like El Nino, fluctuations in ocean circulation and anomalies in ocean heat content.
Compounding the inexact science of the global warming model - is the distinctly separate exercise of the what if science of the consequences of global warming. Because climatolagist cannot predict an actual temperature within a margin of error, they assume a 2, or 3, or 4 degree rise then proceed to use team of environmental experts to speculation or conjecture that then oceans will rise, the birds will die, and we will have famine.
But explain how without any help from government the EIA reported the fact that in 2008 the U.S. reduced it carbon emission by 2.8%. Some will argue that American consumed less leaving the argument that if the American economy returns - which is in considerable doubt now - it will hurt global warming.
Global warming is a myth. Check it out: Michaels, Patrick J. "Global-Warming Myth." The Cato Institute. May 16, 2008. <http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...>
Interesting link you provided Killer, the Cato Institute, a think tank in Washington, founded by Crane & Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned oil company in the USA. Now isnt that strange, still, what more can one expect from the largest private oil company in the USA, its only natural that they would say that, they are not the cause of any pollution????, nor is there any global warming
silly me!
uddeboda -- Cato is a private think tank, not sucking on the public teat and all that implies. I've always found them to be very credible. I've met and talked with its CEO and also found him to be both personable and honorable. This particular article by Mr. Michaels was well-researched and well-presented, using corroborative sources. Unlike your spewed unsupported generalization.
KillerB
Although CATO is a think tank it is still a think tank run by the largest private oil company in the USA, and for sure they are not going to be applauding the use of renewables, not now or ever.
I would rather pick the CATO over the United Nations.
Choose who you may, its quite OK by me, and thanks for the exchange of ideas
Cato is a libertarian think tank where ideology substitutes for thinking. How many members of Cato have published in peer reviewed climate science journals recently?
As for the supposedly suppressed paper by an economist regarding global warming please see this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
mschaffer -- on exactly what do you base "Cato is a libertarian think tank where ideology substitutes for thinking"? In my opinion what I get from there is usually well thought-through, well written by qualified writers, and based on outside sources.
About the author of the study I linked to: "Patrick J. Michaels is research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. He is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, winner of the American Library Association's worldwide competition for public service writing, and an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year," awarded by the Association of American Geographers."
He's also author of a recent book relevant to this discussion "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media"
Looks to me like he's better qualified than anyone the rest of you cited here.
KillerB,
I base my opinion on the Cato website which argues backwards from an ideological conclusion to evidence supporting those conclusions while ignoring countervailing facts.
Patrick J. Michaels is a hack.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
You won't ever be able to recognize this as you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Sourcewatch is a reliable site? What kind of dope you smoking. It is a wiki, which means it is a site that can be changed by anyone. Go to your beloved site and check for yourself. Click on "about us".
There are a great many scientists who are experts in climatology and meterology who claim climate change is bull. Do a search "John Christy global warming" and read the articles and videos that appear or are linked. John Christy is a PHD in atmospheric science, not some hack PHD in Economics who pretends to be an expert. Or some hack politician like Al Gore. There have been news reports that when big Al left DC he was worth $2 million. Now it's claimed he's worth $100 million. Global warming certainly does pay.
Two sites that give a contrary take on global waming and climate change are
http://icecap.us
http://www.globalwarming.org
Most of those posting on these sites have impressive credentials in the proper fields. Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
The realclimate link provided was an article written by a PHD in mathematics. He works on climate models, those wonderful programs that have proven to be unreliable. He is not a climate scientist. Is this the best you can come up with?
Like we're supposed to believe anything about global warming coming from an "independent consultant for green-building technology."
odeman -- good points! and excellent about Gore! As bad as Bush was, to think of what that lazy pretty boy (who invented the internet, donchaknow) in the White House is the stuff of nightmares.
henderson -- I wondered about that too.
"Even during the past 650 thousand years, when we have had 4 or 5 huge natural climate changes, greenhouse gases were never higher than 285ppm, so in less than 150 years, we, mankind have managed to increase GHG levels from 285ppm to almost 450ppm, all thanks to the burning of fossil fuels"
That is an interesting comment from a person who evidently does not know how long we have been able to measure C02, nor does he know the word for carbon dioxide. I would love to know what the C02 concentration in the atmosphere was during the Medieval Warm period. It had to be higher than now but since we have no records, how can anyone talk about the last 650 thousand years. The Medieval Warm period was only 1000 years ago.
The one thing we do know was we had the ability to measure C02 in the 1940's and it was higher than now. Why? Because it was warmer than now. The oceans give off C02 when they are warmer and take in C02 when they are cool. It is that simple. When the planet's temperature was 22 C, it is estimated that C02 was around 10,000 ppm. It fits.
I agree that the EPA should do their own investigation, not use old summaries from the IPCC. The IPCC does not do their own science so what kind of nonsense is the EPA feeding us? We need real science which the NIPCC is doing.
Please,
Can't you all stop embarrassing yourselves by writing nonsense for one moment?
eveable,
GHG is a common term for Global Heating Gases since there are several in action here. If you "would love to know what the CO2 concentration was during the Medieval Warm period" there is a way. Go to the UNLV Lied Library and look at the actual research. You will then confirm that everything you and other denialists write is, indeed, nonsense. You could even use Google intelligently and find this:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/content...
odeman,
I would be happy to stop using Sourcewatch if you can prove with reliable data that they have been wrong. Gavin Schmidt is much more than a mathematics Phd:
Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.
See here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=4...
By the way odeman,
When you report rumors regarding Al Gore your credibility is zero. I have also not referenced Al Gore as a science source so stop with the strawman argument.
Regarding icecap, you won't be able to know this because of suffering from Dunning-Kruger incompetence but it is a collection of cranks. The same for your other crank site. I would go so far as to invite to meet with you at the UNLV research library so you can confirm just what a paucity of real research your 'experts' have actually done.
How sad, mschaffer, you just don't get it. The idea that you write so profusely about is a sham. I am sorry it rocked you to your core, but here is another newsflash; Obama is driving our economy of the cliff because he is beholding to all those campaign contributions.
I would say he is the Manchurian Candidate but he is more like a Muppet than a brain-washed person.
Thanks mschaffer. Your link could not tell me the C02 concentration during the Medieval Warm Period. I really do not think that ice core samples are an accurate method of determining Co2 levels but..you proved my point for me.
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.
Therefore we are looking at the increased Co2 following the last ice age or maybe increased C02 following the Medieval Warm Period. We really don't know do we?
Please notice that the article mentions the last 3 warm periods. Note..the climate changes, always has and always will. You may pay Obama whatever you wish but it will still change. Past civilizations have enjoyed the warmer temperatures and the longer growing season. They did not have a bunch of eco nazi's around. Why do we?
Regarding Global Heating Gases, are you going to say what ones you are talking about or are you just blabbering? Maybe you are talking about water vapor.
eveable,
You really are at best uneducated on this subject.
Please look up Milankovich cycles to understand what triggered natural warming in the past. While I understand you don't know that several factors are at work simultaneously and that the current warming is being driven by increasing CO2 levels added from burning sequestered carbon the science literature is quite clear and you are lazy for not doing the hard work and just finding abstracts of papers you think support your denialism. You just have to go find actual peer reviewed research as I have already suggested to see how ignorant you are being. By the way, I smiled when I noted you have neither read the paper you are quoting nor linked to the original and you failed to mention it dates from 1999.
When you do go to a research library, look up positive amplification and CO2. Finally, ponder the implications of the short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor to start to understand why it is not a driver of the current warming. You really are pathetic.
Eveable,
Facts are that we can measure CO2 contents of the atmosphere, I thought everybody knew this. Scientists drill thru the Antactica ice sheet to a depth sufficient to be able to measure more than just CO2 content as far back as 650000 years ago. This is basic science, they extract the contents of "bubbles" in the ice core and measure, easy peasy, just the same as they can measure the contents of "bubbles" in samples from the Greenland ice cores and see that during the so called warm period to find that the CO2 content was about constant, ie 285ppm, same for the little ice age in the late 1600s about 285ppm.
You are wrong in assuming that the CO2 figure for 1940 were higher than they are today, in actual fact they were approx 310ppm, FACT, and todays figure is just over 390ppm, FACT, total greenhouse gases are now totally almost 450ppm FACT today. A warm climate does not mean that CO2 figures are higher, this has been determined thru ice core measurements since 650000 years when CO2 concentrations were between 180 and 300ppm. FACT. At no time during the past 650000 yrs has global temperatures been higher than +4C and no lower than -8C. The last time it was +4C ocean levels were much much higher than that of today.
There is of course great uncertainty about climate change. But, every developed country's National Academy of Science (or their equivalent) has endorsed the idea that hte earth's climate is warming and it is caused, at least in part by human emissions of greenhouse gases. It seems to me that even if there is a small chance of the catostrophic events, with millions of people suffering, we should take action.
The CATO and Competitive Enterprise Insitute blogs on climate are not published and peer reviewed in the sceintific literture. I don't think the EPA should use blog articles that have not received scientific scruitiny. While the Carlin article contains references of peer-reviewed published articles, the main conclusions are lifted directly from blogs (not peer reviewed). It is understandable that it was not used. It does not meet standards of good science. Carlin also failed to discuss even more numerous publshed peer reviewed articles that directly refute his conclusions and "research" he uses. One can always find some blog article to support your own bias. The key to good science is to assess all the research meeting standards (e.g., publicaiton in peer reviewed academic journals). If CATO's researchers have solid science, let them publish it in formums where they can receive appropriate review by their peers.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/B...
Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?
In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
Ice cores provide the historic record and data collected at Mauna Loa the recent record. Both records are drastically modified to produce a smooth continuous curve with little variability. This was necessary to confirm the evidence falsely concluded from many 19th century measures that pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 ppm and didn't vary much. So how did they engineer the smooth curves and ignore the fact the 19th century record shows a global average of 335 ppm and considerable variability from year to year.
Most people don't know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements as the work of Ernst-Georg Beck has thoroughly documented. Guy Stewart Callendar was an earlier visitor to these records. He rejected most of the records including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected certain records that established the pre-industrial level as 280 ppm.
As Jaworowski notes, "The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv."
Beck recently confirmed Jaworowski's research. A September 2008 article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated the 19th century findings. In a devastating conclusion Beck writes,
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
So the pre-industrial level is at least 50 ppm higher than the level put into the computer models that produce all future climate predictions. The models also incorrectly assume uniform atmospheric global distribution and virtually no variability of CO2 from year to year.
Beck found, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm."
Elimination of data is also done with the Mauna Loa and other atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon. He ignored natural sources, a practice that continues. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 meters (m) up the volcano. As Beck notes "Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude." (Beck, 2008, "50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa" Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.
Jaworowski estimates the ice core readings are at least 20% low. That is more reasonable given the CO2 levels for 600 millions years using geologic evidence. Here the current level of 385 ppm is the lowest in the entire record and only equaled by a period between 315 and 270 million years ago (mya).
There are many problems with the ice core record. It takes years, sometimes up to 80, for air to be trapped in the ice so the question is what is actually being trapped and measured? Melt water moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the air bubble. Bacteria form in the ice releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at great depth. Under the pressure below 50m ice changes from brittle to plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear as the ice layers meld and compress. A considerable depth of ice covering a long period of time is required to obtain a single reading at depth.
Further evidence of the effects of smoothing and the artificially low ice core readings are provided by measurements of stomata. Stomata are the small openings on leaves that vary directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period illustrates the issue.
Stomata data show the higher readings and variability when compared to the excessively smoothed ice core record. This aligns quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. A Danish stomata record shows levels of 333 ppm 9400 years ago and 348 ppm 9600 years ago.
eveable,
My you have been busy collecting 3 pages of drivel. No wonder there are so many skeptics who read things like this on Google search, just type in www.google.skepticsglobalwarming.com and heypresto you have more than a thousand pages of this claptrap
The letter writer is so out of touch.
The earth's tempatures have been cooling for 8 straight years.
That is why the lib kool-aid drinkers are now instructed to say "climate change" instead of "global warming".
I guess he forgot to gulp down his last dose of kool-aid.
He needs to get into the program or be sent to a re-education camp.
UD, The fact that you say the planet is warming when it is in fact cooling means..I am right, you are wrong. If you would take the time to read scientific papers from all over, not just your global warming sites, you would find out that there were Co2 masurements done in the 1900's and in the 20th century, that ice core samples are not regarded as good evidence and the kicker, that the planet's temperatures are invalidating the hypothesis of AGW. Remember that the hyothesis of AGW is only that, a hypothesis. The true test of any hyothesis is real life data, not computer models. The AGW hyothesis has not been validated by temperature or by the hot spot, which has not been discovered. The theory of natural variability on the other hand, has never been disproven.
eveable,
Please see the link to NASA GISS and explain why the actual data disagree with your rants:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
While you are correcting your obvious incompentence could you explain what credentials you have that would give any reader confidence in what you link to? Mine are a Magna Cum Laude B.S. in Environmental Studies and attendance at every public lecture given by Phd's in the physical sciences, including atmospheric chemistry, paleoclimatology, physics, and biology. I even attended a lecture given by S. Fred Singer at which I exposed his cherry picking of start and end dates for certain temperature readings.
Your link to "Energy and Environment" is good for a laugh and you have been suckered regarding this:
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Research and Background
Jaworowski is a retired professor of atomic radiation. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Jaworowski has published 17 research articles in peer-reviewed journals, mainly on the subject of radioactivity.
Jaworowski and the US Senate Committee
An outspoken critic of mainstream climate science, Jaworoski authored a statement, dated March 19, 2004, titled "Climate change: incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2," which he claims was a "statement written for the hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation." However, apparently there is no record that Jaworowski ever made such a presentation to the US Senate, or provided this paper to them. Despite no record of Jawarowski presenting to the committee, Steve Milloy wrote a Fox News op-ed stating that Jaworowski had presented to the Senate Committee.
eveable,
Aren't you just a little ashamed to be caught posting an easily exposed lie?
mschaffer,
Dont worry about eveable, he get his info from most unreliable sources, even the infamous S F Singer who is laughing stock across the world, remember his crusade with tobacco and its NOT been harmful to humans, and now he gangs up with the motor and fossil fuel industries saying that climate change is a hoax, wonder what he will turn to next. He could find it difficult to find a job as consult to some wierd and looney group.
I wrote the article. Global warming or cooling is not the issue idiots. What goes up comes down. 200,000 tons of pollution go up 200,000 tons come down. I don't buy into global warming, I do beleive we should try harder to control our wholesale destruction of the enviromnent. I fish, and mercury advisories are at most of my fish holes. Duh the mercury comes from us. Lets just try harder to NOT put so much in the air by building more efficient buildings and transportation.