An interesting pair of letters about global warming on today’s (April 2) Review-Journal editorial page. I recommend readers study both in detail.
First, note that when advocates of public panic and massive government interventions (i.e., "taxes") to "cure global warming" say it’s "misleading" for us to report the vast majority of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from natural sources, they apparently mean our statement is "correct."
(In the second of today’s letters, Dick Geyer provides the real numbers — less than a tenth of 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide, and only 5 percent of THAT is from man-made sources.)
Also note that when global warming advocates argue that the skeptics are wrong to be skeptical about the dangers of "man-made global warming," they now decline to use the phrase "global warming," at all. Honest. They won’t use it once.
Instead, they now refer to "climate change" (even if all they really detail are changes in the WEATHER, which is something quite different from a change in the CLIMATE.)
Why do they do this? I submit it’s because they know the earth has either stopped warming, or soon will. They know perfectly well that once this becomes undeniable, we will be pointing out to them, "But you said global warming was the danger, and that burning fossil fuels was the cause. So if the current danger is ‘global cooling,’ the solution must be for us to burn all the fossil fuels we can, right?"
What’s going on now is called "inoculation." By shifting their rhetoric, they lay a groundwork to respond, "No, we never said ‘global warming,’ you got that wrong. We said ‘climate change.’ That can mean warming or cooling or some combination or succession of the two, and it’s ALL caused by driving your bad, bad cars and generating your bad, bad electricity with bad, bad fossil fuels."
Which is — let me guess, here — "bad"?
Finally, as to one letter-writer’s assertion that "Water is a greenhouse gas, but it’s a liquid or solid at Earth’s surface temperatures. Some of it evaporates, but an equivalent quantity returns to Earth so the net contribution to global warming is nil," let us doff our hats in a moment of scientific wonderment.
This is like saying that since all the steam in a steam engine eventually condenses back into water at or near its original temperature, the steam can have played no role in causing the locomotive to move forward on its tracks.
Let’s keep this simple. If you have a computer, go to Google. Type in "water vapor contribution global warming." Pick any "hit," though I find geocraft.com (the first hit in my search) and the Wikipedia entry pretty easy to understand.
Every source I consult tells me water vapor is the PREDOMINANT "greenhouse gas."
What I want to know is, once these Chicken Littles are proven really, really, really wrong, will they finally agree to repeal all their bogus "climate" laws and go away?
Why do I think not?
— 30 —