Ed Kahl (Letters to the editor, Jan. 4 and Jan. 9) is so wrong about so many things in his climate change-denying screeds that it is not possible to address them in one letter. In response, however, there is one very important point to make. There is overwhelming consensus in the climate science community that climate change is real, that it is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, that its consequences are serious, and that there will be devastating impacts on human health and well-being if we don’t manage to get it under control in the next decade or so. These facts are affirmed by reports issued by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US National Climate Assessment, and literally thousands of scientific papers that have been published in the past few decades. There is no doubt about the reality of climate change and what we need to do to address it: that is to make dramatic reductions in our emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others).
There are no longer any grounds for climate change denial of Kahl’s sort. Those who continue to perpetuate the notion that climate change in the 21st century is some kind of natural phenomenon that we have no control over are committing a grave disservice to the futures of our children and grandchildren. We know humans caused climate change, and humans can stop it if we can muster the collective political will to do so.
I did not and do not deny climate change. I only deny that it's catastrophic. We have ample science and time avoid it if it happens. The "cry" of “catastrophic climate change is far more political science than real science. Politicians and autocratic leaders of the worlds countries are lining up for “climate change money” while China continues emits 1/3 of the worlds CO2.
Here we go again, this time by Mr. Steele. “Overwhelming consensus,” “thousands of scientific papers,” and other hyperbolic claims… Now if we look at those “thousands of scientific papers” creating this “overwhelming consensus,” what time frame are these folks cherry-picking to support their assertions? Who is funding the scientific paper writers supporting this global warming scam? I’m betting many, if not all, are receiving funding from governments/special interest organizations pushing for a global warming narrative. Because if you look to our Earth’s past, you’ll see that CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, yet there were no cars or air conditioning. Note that we’ve never encountered a “Steam” age while we’ve undergone numerous Ice Ages. It’s interesting that after periods of high CO2 levels, inexplicably, these levels have gone down, without folks thinking they could control Mother Nature.
Recently, I read an interesting article, “The Reason There’s Been No Cure for Alzheimers” by Joanne Silberner (https://www.thefp.com/p/where-is-the-cure-for-alzheimers) that explains why there’s no cure for Alzheimers. The article explains an almost singular focus on the research being performed via “ink” and grants to the degree that other research is not funded - essentially attempting to control the narrative and focus of Alzheimer’s research via funding and publicity. Sound familiar to this “overwhelming consensus” and “thousands of scientific papers” narrative? Silberner’s article is a good read for those interested. Coincidentally, a new Alzheimer’s drug is out, but again does not provide a cure.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
I did not and do not deny climate change. I only deny that it's catastrophic. We have ample science and time avoid it if it happens. The "cry" of “catastrophic climate change is far more political science than real science. Politicians and autocratic leaders of the worlds countries are lining up for “climate change money” while China continues emits 1/3 of the worlds CO2.
Thank you for the great letter, Bob!
Here we go again, this time by Mr. Steele. “Overwhelming consensus,” “thousands of scientific papers,” and other hyperbolic claims… Now if we look at those “thousands of scientific papers” creating this “overwhelming consensus,” what time frame are these folks cherry-picking to support their assertions? Who is funding the scientific paper writers supporting this global warming scam? I’m betting many, if not all, are receiving funding from governments/special interest organizations pushing for a global warming narrative. Because if you look to our Earth’s past, you’ll see that CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, yet there were no cars or air conditioning. Note that we’ve never encountered a “Steam” age while we’ve undergone numerous Ice Ages. It’s interesting that after periods of high CO2 levels, inexplicably, these levels have gone down, without folks thinking they could control Mother Nature.
Recently, I read an interesting article, “The Reason There’s Been No Cure for Alzheimers” by Joanne Silberner (https://www.thefp.com/p/where-is-the-cure-for-alzheimers) that explains why there’s no cure for Alzheimers. The article explains an almost singular focus on the research being performed via “ink” and grants to the degree that other research is not funded - essentially attempting to control the narrative and focus of Alzheimer’s research via funding and publicity. Sound familiar to this “overwhelming consensus” and “thousands of scientific papers” narrative? Silberner’s article is a good read for those interested. Coincidentally, a new Alzheimer’s drug is out, but again does not provide a cure.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.