I’ve read the last few week’s editorials and letters concerning climate change with interest. Those authors and your readers, however, need to understand that a consensus by 58 generals, 27 Nobel Prize winners, the Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. congressmen, and a lot of other people with impressive titles is not science. 

It’s a movement, just like the Flat Earth Society was a movement.  

Science requires replicable experiments that prove a hypothesis. So far, all climate change, formerly global warming, consists of is observations fed into computer model that’s made a bunch of very inaccurate predictions, i.e. Miami is not underwater.

 So although there may be evidence that the climate is warming, there isn’t any scientific evidence that mankind is causing it. 

Could this just be another climate cycle like the Ice Age? Is it a 100 year cycle, a thousand year cycle, a 10,000, 100,000 or million year cycle?

So far, the Flat Earth Society, now known as climate change, can’t even make good predictions much less prove it. Don’t get me wrong. Do I think we should be less wasteful, more environmentally conscious? Of course. But that doesn’t mean we should surrender our freedoms, sovereignty and money to a bunch of people who don’t have a solution. How can you have a solution to a problem if you can’t even prove what’s causing it? If every far-fetched idea of the climate changers were implemented in the U.S. today, immediately, it wouldn’t affect climate one whit because the rest of the world is blithely doing their thing. Even if the rest of the world were on board, you’ve still got natural fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. that put out tons of CO2. 

Isn’t it grandiose and narcissistic for mankind to think we can rule the planet? The planet is remarkably self-healing. All that CO2 may prove to be helpful, growing forests and increasing crops.  

All I’m saying is that it’s foolish to surrender your freedom and property to a bunch of folks, whom I suspect, have ulterior motives, i.e. power and control, without scientific proof. Make them supply proof before you give up a dime.

Mark S. Dolecki

Baytown

 

(10) comments

rmartin

Amen Mark, Amen...

baytownbert

Thank you. You are the voice of reason and logic.

Frank

Mark, answer these three questions with an open mind, and you will have your proof. 1. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? 2. Is the amount of carbon dioxide increasing in our atmosphere? 3. Other than human activity, can you name any other source that is significant enough to account for the increase in carbon dioxide. I could add another. Do you think it is just a coincidence that in the vastness of geological time, global warming is occurring at the moment when human activity producing large amounts of CO2 is happening? Who are the “bunch of folks†that are seeking “power and control†by warning us about the dangers of global warming? Sounds like the making of a good conspiracy theory, but climatologists are not the kind of people who make good villains in a myth. 97 percent of climatologists believe that global warming is a real thing. If they are right, there are serious implications for our planet. You can choose to ignore them, but what if you are wrong? If you were playing poker and the odds of you hitting an inside straight was 3 percent, is it smart to go ‘all in’?

Frank

Mark, your letter implied that volcanos and natural fires could account for the carbon dioxide increase in our atmosphere. Those events have been around for at least millions of years, adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a fairly regular rate and making their contribution to the "normal" CO2 level. Unless there is a huge increase in those activities, they would not contribute to the observed INCREASE in atmospheric levels of CO2. Here are a couple of blurbs from the internet to put volcanic CO2 vs. forest fire CO2 vs. human activity CO2 in perspective. From NOAA: "Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do." from an National Science Foundation study: "Overall, the study estimates that U.S. fires release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning."

rmartin

Hey Frankie, the readers get so tired of you and your bogus liberal propaganda. NOAA has been caught altering data so you can't believe anything they say. You could put the world on bicycles and one St. Helen eruption would wipe all that so called saving the planet out...

Frank

N/A, the difference between my posts and your posts is that I try to back up my ideas with data/facts. You deal in your opinions and fantasy. Maybe you can produce data that would show that a Mt. St. Helen eruption would produce more CO2 than all human activity. Don't throw a ridiculous statement out there without facts to back it up. Or maybe you can come up with a poll that shows a majority of climatologists do NOT believe in human-caused climate change. Come on, N/A, let's see some facts to back up your propaganda. By the way, climate change is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, or at least it shouldn't be. It's science vs. ignorance. Readers may be tired of seeing my opinions, but what makes you think they are not equally tired of your bogus Trumpist propaganda? We once had a deal. If you quit writing letters to the Sun, I would stop responding with letters of my own. YOU are the one who is obsessed by seeing your name in print. You wrote 4 letters after that tacit agreement before I responded. You word is not worth squat.

rmartin

Hey Frankie, check out our responses compared to your long boring in accurate taking up 3 pages. All the sources you quote have been caught cheating to keep the grant money coming like the bogus Trump witch hunt about to be exposed...

Frank

in accurate, N/A? Do you mean inaccurate? My responses take up 3 pages? Now that is inaccurate. As usual you make accusations without any facts. Do us a favor. Make a list of all the instances where climatologists cheated to keep the grant money coming. Then make a list of all the instances where climatologists used real data to make predictions that you don’t like. Of course you won’t do that because it would make you look foolish. Bottom line is that you will not accept any facts that bring your worldview into question. It’s called disconfirmation bias.

rmartin

Hey Frankie, I've told you many times the fraudulent instances by the various agencies but you act as if it didn't happen just like the fraudulent Trump investigations. A friend told me 50 years ago and it's so true "You can't reason with a fanatic" . You are a so called science teacher with which I have my doubts. Dwell on Antoine Lavoisier Law of Conservation of Mass Energy and then think about the dumb things you say. This will be my final response as you can't reason with a fanatic..

Frank

You mean I get the last word. That’s different. Somehow I doubt it. A fanatic is a person who obsessively believes something without any rational or scientific evidence to support his belief. A fanatic will ignore proven facts and evidence if they do not agree with his preconceived opinions. That describes one of us.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.