Editor,
I respond to Ed Kahlās letters of Jan. 4 and 9. In my opinion, letters to the editor are not a suitable forum for discussion on the very complex subject of human-caused climate change and its consequences. There is not enough room for a thorough and cogently argued position, with citations of scientific evidence to substantiate claims.Ā
In the scientific community, anthropogenic global warming is no longer a subject for debate. Human activities (burning of fossil fuels, promiscuous land clearance and industrial-scale agriculture) have been heating the planet since the Industrial Revolution, which we know thanks to an overwhelming body of evidence that began with temperature measurements taken at weather stations and on ships starting in the mid-1800s, followed later by tracking surface temperatures with satellites and studying geologic records.Ā
Average global temperatures have increased by 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, with the greatest changes happening in the late 20th century. Over 90% of scientists are certain that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. Most major scientific bodies, from NASA to the World Meteorological Organization, endorse this view. While, as Mr. Kahn indicates, our planet has always been subject to major climatic shifts, the scale and speed of this global warming is causing more frequent and catastrophic weather events that will only increase in scale if nothing is done.Ā
With 8 billion people on the planet, most with little means of adapting to climate change, this is a very different situation from past climatic shifts.Ā
Laura Brash
San Mateo
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 youāre helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(8) comments
Thank you, LTE-writers Ms. Hubbard, Laura Brash, Bob Steele, and commentator Westy, for your commonsense input on this silly climate debate, kept alive by ignoramuses without a fiber of science background or understanding. These are in the same group of people who use snow as an argument against global warming, who believe Trump was the best president ever, and that mysterious foreign forces rigged the election against him. So, what can we expect on a complex issue such as climate change, - except more unadulterated nonsense?
Here we go againā¦ Cherry picking a starting date of 1880ā¦ Ms. Brash, if you look back further than 3 to 5 million years ago, youāll see CO2 levels were much, much higher than today. However, if we look back to the 3 to 5 million years ago when CO2 levels were comparable, what action or actions reduced CO2 levels? I'd say Mother Nature. I don't believe there were folks thinking they could save the world by emitting less carbon or initiating a cooling trend, so how was this reduction achieved? BTW, how are you going to convince China, India, and other developing nations to curb their use of fossil fuels? Pay them off? Theyāll take your money and run, as long as you give it to them. Once you attempt to stifle their growing economies, theyāll still take your money, but they wonāt curb their fossil-fuel usage.
TY: What on flat Earth does climate change millions of years ago have to do with todayās problems, except to show that nature does its own thing? The problem is that whatever climate change nature causes, we ADD to it. Thatās what we must address, or else! And why not set a good example for the rest of the world, as powerful as we claim to be? Not that we have set much of an example since President Obama left office, but we can do better than exposing ourselves as nothing but anti-science ding-a-lings?
Jorg, thanks for your one valid point (the exclamation point). Instead of your continual bellyaching, perhaps you can propose some solutions and make a positive contribution to a discussion. I wonāt hold my breath as Iām happy to contribute my carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Question: since I have houseplants converting my carbon dioxide to oxygen, am I carbon neutral, at a minimum? I have a dozen houseplants.
Dear Mr Y, 1880 is just after the industrial revolution began, when humans began to burn coal and oil on a massive scale. If you look at a graph of CO2 in the atmosphere, you see that it remains fairly level over many millennia until the late 1880's, and then climbs almost straight up. It looks like a hockey stick. We are currently at levels never seen before in all of the time humans have existed. You hark back to 3 million years ago, but humans were not in existence then. And if we keep on the trajectory we are on, we will blip out of existence again without even having lasted nearly as long as the dinosaurs did.
Weāve already addressed cherry-picking so letās put a pin in it. As I said under another LTE, for the sake of argument, letās accept that weāre a carbon emission pumping machine. What will you do about it, other than trying to convince folks we can effect global warming? Proposed solutionsā¦
Thank you for the great letter, Laura!
I disagree about LTEs. They are very important in that they may help change a way of life that is a leading cause - the private automobile. Climate magazine recently ran a story on a long-gone bus system in Redwood City that worked very well. Besides, the writer says letters are not the place to debate - so why did you write one?
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.