Letter: Alarmists’ logic doesn’t stand up
Doug Dwoyer and I disagree on global warming, aka climate change (“Letter writer’s facts called into question,” March 13 Readers Write). Basically, it depends on what data you believe. Mr. Dwoyer pins his premise on data generated by NOAA, which is funded by our government, whose cause celebre these days is saving the planet from global warming. Readers of my vintage may recall that this same NOAA, in the mid-1970s, was issuing frantic warnings about the immanent ice age and what we had to do “right now” to avoid world catastrophe (e.g., sprinkle coal dust over the Arctic ice cap). Which is it?
The alarmists fail to acknowledge the half dozen, pre-industrial age warming and cooling cycles that have occurred since the last ice age—some of which were warmer than now, and that the earth has been warming on its own, in a saw-tooth pattern, for the past 12,000 years (During the Middle Ages Warming Period, Vikings were able to grow crops for about 300 years on Greenland before it returned to its present frozen state.) They never explain how these warming/cooling cycles occurred in the absence of human-generated CO2. For some reason, they cannot accept that the earth’s temperature has been, and always will be, driven by solar variation.
Doesn’t it seem odd to think that today’s global temperature is the norm (and the ideal) and that it won’t change if we just eliminate our CO2 output? Overall, the alarmists’ logic just doesn’t stand up.
As for the “consensus” by the scientific community, one may recall that during Galileo’s time, the consensus by the “scientists” and “experts” was that the universe revolved around the earth. In those times, it was fear of the Inquisition that stifled dissent. Today it is threatened by the cutoff of grant money that accomplishes the same end. I stand by my earlier letter.