.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

LETTER: An opposing view on warming

-A A +A

Dear Editor,
I read your article in The Sun last week with interest and would like to offer a rebuttal to David Whitlock’s conclusions.

You say that as far as global warming is concerned, the “when” has arrived. I’ve been hearing that exact phrase a lot in the last six weeks, after the president made this latest push. How was this determined?

When did the hypothesis of manmade global warming turn into a scientific theory? I’m not a scientist, but from what I’ve read, in order for a hypothesis to develop into a theory, it must be provable (or disprovable), testable and have predictive value before it can become a theory (www.oakton.edu). According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a scientific theory “is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observations and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not guesses, but reliable accounts of the real world.” What is the physics of manmade global warming? What testing produced the results that global warming is man made?

We have also been told, for the past 10 years, that “97 percent” of all scientists agree that climate change is caused by manmade activity.  Has anybody seen this list lately? Consider the following:

• Lennart Bengtsson, Swedish climatologist and one of the pioneers of the hypothesis of global warming since the ‘70’s, has now switched from believer to denier. He states, “There is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what real world data is actually telling us.”

• James Loveloch, English scientist who once said, “Billions will die” as a result of global warming, now says, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing — we thought we did 20 years ago.”

• Judith Curry, Climatologist and chair of The School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, now disagrees with the assumption that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans.”

• Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the founders of The German Green Movement, now argues that the sun, and not CO2, is the most significant driver of climate change. He states, “Science has been corrupted by political indoctrination.”

If global warming or manmade climate change is so obvious and undisputable, consider the following:

• Why would Al Gore use a film clip from a fictional movie (An Inconvenient  Truth) showing Antarctic ice shelves falling into the sea and present it as truth? In addition, it has been pointed out that there are 35 lies or “errors” in this movie. (www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org)

• Why would Michael Mann, Penn State professor, refuse to disclose his metadata that was used to demonstrate his hockey stick graph used by many global warming believers to help prove manmade climate change?

• In 2009, computer hackers discovered over 160 megabytes of emails from The Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia showing many researchers around the world discussing how to destroy data that did not support global warming.

If manmade climate change is undisputable, why do some scientists use so much deception and obfuscation in trying to prove their points?  Could it be found by following the money?

It appears that the majority of scientists that support global warming are supported by government grants or other government programs. It would be logical to assume that in order for the money to keep coming in, you keep saying what your benefactor wants to hear.  But why would politicians be concerned with supporting these kinds of studies?  The answer would be three reasons — more taxes, more government and more control.

Before you say politicians wouldn’t do that, you only need to go back to 2010 during the healthcare debate. They said that national healthcare would reduce our premiums for the average family over $2,500 per year; that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor and that the total cost would only be $900 billion ($2.1 trillion so far).  Why do politicians want national healthcare?  Three reasons: more taxes, more government and more control.

I don’t believe in the idea of manmade climate change.  It has not been proven to me.  I am old enough to remember the ‘70’s, when they first started calling it global cooling. Ten years later they changed it to global warming. If they can’t get it right in a 10-year timeframe how can they predict what is going to happen in the next 100 years?  Now they call it climate change, after a few cold winters knocked holes in the belief of “warming.”

I am a little surprised that anyone would believe in an idea where so much deception is used to prove a hypothesis. How narcissistic must man be to think he is so powerful he can alter the weather on God’s good Earth?

What an insult to the Creator.

Sincerely,
Gene Boldrick
Louisville, Ky.