| Letters to the Editor |
|
| Top | Previous | Next |
Editor, The Oregonian
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
FAX (503)294-4193
letters@news.oregonian.com
To the Editor:
In his letter of May 19, Gerald Cavanaugh makes one false statement after another. Self-anointed spokesmen for "the Environment" appear to have such a weak case for global energy rationing (the Kyoto Treaty) that they always resort to ridicule, innuendo, name-calling, childish pranks, and outright falsehoods.
Their buddies no doubt spiked the petition with the forged signature of one of the Spice Girls. The global warmers would rather talk about her, or about the 452 American scientists of unknown qualifications who signed an unspecified statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists. They don't like to mention the more than 16,000 American scientists, two-thirds of whom have an advanced degree in science, who signed the following statement:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The review article distributed with the petition is heavily referenced to primary observational data and the peer-reviewed literature. It was written by four highly competent scientists, two of whom have published extensively in the field of climate change. No funding was received from corporate interests. Skeptics are invited to read for themselves (http://www.oism.org/pproject or http://www.sitewave.net /pproject). To date, no valid technical objections have been raised by serious scientists.
Mr. Cavanaugh is right about one thing: there is a grave cause for worry. But that cause is the Kyoto Treaty and the global economic havoc it would wreak, with devastating effects on humankind and other living things.
Sincerely, Jane M. Orient, M.D., F.A.C.P., 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9, Tucson, Arizona 85716, (520)323-3110 or (520)325-2689.
| Top | Previous | Next |
Internal Medicine
1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716
Telephone: 520-325-2689
May 3, 1998
Editor, The New York Times
229 W. 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
FAX (202)862-0340; (212)556-3622
To the Editor:
As Robert L. Park's article "Scientists and Their Political Passions" shows, the debate about the Kyoto energy rationing treaty is primarily about values.
Contrary to his assertion, neither "most climatologists" nor the National Academy of Science has endorsed the Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis. The NAS only concluded that there are "great uncertainties" in the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on temperature. The predictions keep getting milder, as more data are collected, but the fact is that the temperature of the earth has been much warmer than the worst predicted case, for example, during the Medieval Climatic Optimum. The result: no catastrophe, only benefits.
Hundreds of scientific experiments show the benefits of enhanced carbon dioxide concentrations on plants. Since carbon dioxide is the basic building block of all life, that is really not surprising.
As any physics professor should know, it is simply impossible to have physically "unlimited" increases in "greenhouse gases." The limitations Park wants to impose are political ones: forced restrictions (rationing) on energy usage and therefore on economic activity.
If Park's mother taught him that it is virtuous to shiver in the dark, let him keep his thermostat down. But imposing his religious views on millions of less affluent others is another issue. He knows very well that "unrationed burning of hydrocarbons allows the world to support a larger population"Äand incidentally lifts millions of human beings from poverty and misery. To reach the stated goal of Kyoto advocates would require human deaths on a genocidal scale.
More than 16,000 scientists have now said "nonsense" to the Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis, based on undisputed facts. All Americans need to know what the scientists said, and why. They should read the review article themselves (available at http://www.oism.org/pproject or http://www.sitewave.net/pproject) and not just trust and parrot Robert Park.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Orient, M.D.
| Top | Previous | Next |
Internal Medicine
1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716
Telephone: 520-325-2689
May 18, 1998
Editor
The Casper Star-Tribune
To the Editor:
In his vituperative article on the anti-Kyoto Petition, Robin Groose has relied mostly on the polemicist's last resort: the ad hominem attack. He didn't even stop with the Petition's authors, but also cast aspersions on those of his colleagues at the University of Wyoming who also signed it -- and by implication on the more than 16,000 other American scientists who did so. Oh, he didn't mention that there were more than 16,000. Then he could hardly have used the term "handful."
Groose as much as states that none of his colleagues are grown-up enough to read a pre-print (a scientific article that has not yet been published), and draw reliable conclusions from it. They must wait for a journal editor (and two or three few hand-picked "peer reviewers") to read it and possibly censor it.
He makes one serious though completely unfounded charge about the contents of the 8-page review article that scientists received: he claims that the cited references do not support the paper. On the contrary. Hundreds of other scientific experiments also show that carbon dioxide enhances plant growth, under a wide variety of conditions. Moreover, it increases their resistance to adverse conditions such as drought. That's why those greenhouse workers that Roose mentions are exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide -- the greenhouse owners know that too.
Here are a few facts: the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from about 290 parts per million to 360 ppm over the past century. There has been a 30% increase in U.S. forests since 1950, and a Green Revolution in agricultural yields. The surface temperature of the earth has possibly increased by about half a degree Centigrade since 1900 (with most of the change occurring before 1940), if you use a selection of measuring stations biased toward those with a large urban heat-island effect. If you look at satellite and radiosonde temperatures, there has been a downward slope of 0.06 degrees Centigrade per decade since 1979. If you use a better set of U.S. surface temperatures, current temperature is near the 103-year mean.
Apparently, Groose thinks we should ignore all the data about enhanced plant growth and most of the temperature data as well, and leap into implementing a draconian global energy rationing regime. The Kyoto Treaty would require the U.S. to cut energy usage by 35 to 45% by 2010. The mechanism for amending the requirement, should economic havoc ensue (as it would) requires a 75% vote of the Conference of Parties, 80% of whom represent nations not bound by the requirements. Proponents argue that we "have to do this," regardless of cost, or else the polar ice caps would melt, and Florida would be submerged, and (a new one from Groose) the giant sagebrush would invade Wyoming.
The "scientific consensus" -- of a handful of global warmers and other environmental alarmists, who receive about $2 billion annually in government funding to "find" evidence for impending doomsday -- is to be accepted without question. And the more than 16,000 scientists who disagree are to be marginalized. And a huge number of the world's people will pay the cost in unemployment, poverty, misery, and death. Energy, after all, is the lifeblood of both agriculture and industry.
Groose is so busy surfing the web looking for reasons to attack the religious and political views of the principal author that he makes some small errors too. He states that the authors don't cite themselves because they have not previously published work in the field. Actually, two of the authors have published extensively in the field, and their papers are cited three times.
Groose does well to ridicule the Robinson Self-Teaching Home School Curriculum (while grossly misrepresenting that as well). That curriculum recognizes that science is quantitative, and students must first become competent in mathematics. Graduates of the Robinson curriculum will not be willing to trust and parrot professors like Groose, who are ready to tell them which unverified theories they are to accept as dogma, and which mathematical critiques they are to reject based on the imputed religion of their author.
Sincerely yours,
Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Addendum:
The wording of the petition signed by more than 16,000 American scientists is as follows:
''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''