I rarely hear it mentioned -- and it was absent from this article as well -- that the greenhouse gas emissions being considered as the cause of possible global warming have other undeniable effects. Acid rain (which is measurable and undeniable), the rising proportion of CO2 in the air which all of us breathe, the medical problems caused and exacerbated by air pollution, the continued release of mercury and other heavy metals by coal burning, and resulting food and water contamination -- these are also on the list of ills caused by the unchecked use of fossil fuels.
Can anyone deny that we need to limit the pollution of our air and water?
Margaret Fiore
Project Analyst - Electrical Engineering
Nerac, Inc.
Thank you for a generally balanced article. A few quotes and comments:
"Critics, however, say that the science has shortcomings and that the earth's warming -- and cooling -- is all part of natural climate cycles."
The science always has shortcomings. We continue to revise our understanding of evolution and of the laws of gravity, among many other scientific theories, as we collect more data and as our models become more refined.
Of course there are natural climate cycles that cause warming and cooling. It is not an either/or situation. The challenge is to build models that account for both natural and man-made effects that are consistent with the data.
"Now, though, they are arguing that the some of the leading climatologists who espouse man-made global warming have not been entirely upfront."
There are thousands of scientists working on this. They are all human and some have failings. But that does not change the data that has been presented by the thousands whose honesty is not in dispute. According to the critics' argument, one should not vote Republican if any of the thousands of members of the Republican Party are crooks.
"This writer takes no position on the merits of any global warming theories."
Really? The stakes are high. In a democracy we all need to inform ourselves and take a stand.
Chris Noble
MIT Energy Technology Licensing Officer
Foggy it is getting. It is truly difficult from the layman's perspective to simply know whether or not temperatures have or have not gone up in the last 10-15 years.
The agencies of record would do us all a favor if they would simply release all raw data to all scientists instead of withholding it, as the overseers of the three (East Anglia, NASA, British MET Office) databases to date have done. Why they refuse to do so is a mystery.
Bill Asbury
Product Engineer - Pressure Products Division
Peerless Mfg. Co.
The climate-change skeptics should have the courage of their convictions. They have an affirmative obligation to come up with a coherent hypothesis that accounts for the thinning and shrinking of the ice cap that is more cogent and compelling than the GHG theory, and put it in front of the scientific community. The constant repetition of "no" and the rationalization of responsibility avoidance is just plain childish.
Ray Welch
Associate Director - Energy
Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Nice job sorting through the issues of both of the sides of this monumental political battle. I was not surprised by the partisan alignments that you noted of those who believe and those who do not. I guess I'm certainly in one of those groups too.
It will take a long time to sort out which side is right although I'm not sure it matters in the long run. Unfortunately there is a limited supply of natural resources to fuel our future energy needs. Unless we discover the Holy Grail, such as cold fusion, we need to live within our means so that those of future generations can also.
As such, should be making every effort as a population to efficiently use our natural resources to help ensure an adequacy of supply for those future generations. Until we find other sources of energy on our planet or elsewhere, we will have to live with what we have.
Pete Acimovic
There has been a great deal of popular speculation that the emails call into question the science of global warming. They don't -- but they do call into question the integrity of the scientists involved. Effectively trying to blacklist skeptics -- or journals who publish less than supportive articles -- reeks of Lysenkoism, or some of the worst excesses of the McCarthy era. Those involved should quickly be shown the door by their scientific institutions -- not for bad science, but for being bad scientists.
M. J. Plodinec
Science Advisor
Savannah River National Laboratory
Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.