Dear Editor: In response to Dana Desonie's (Ph.D.) editorial "Global warming is real" (Nov. 28, AFN), I can't help but agree with her observation on people being misled by the media and I think she did a wonderful job of showing the even greater influence politicians have had in the matter, starting with the Kyoto treaty and hopefully climaxing with the film An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore (politician), grossing well over $50 million worldwide and gaining Gore numerous awards from a number of politically charged organizations. In the process Desonie also rightfully points out the influences of other such scientific communities as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations. First of all, I fully recognize that global warming is real given the fact that measured surface temperatures in the United States have been on the increase at a rate of 0.5 degrees Celsius per century. I'll even go so far as to support the notion that humans may have had some influence in such warming, even though it is not obvious in the available data when fully scrutinized. It is the alarmist attitudes on the subject and the notion that throwing a bunch of money to our favorite politicians to "fix it" that I have the most difficulty palating. I certainly have no business challenging Desonie's credentials and motivations on the topic given her extensive education and career as a science writer, editor and book author but, at the price of gas today, I would be happy if any oil company wants to buy me a tank of gas for my dissenting opinion as a lowly career engineer who would be happy to retire someday. Or maybe I should think of a career change altogether to pursue even a fraction of the financial gains of others who share Desonie's viewpoint to avoid seeming curmudgeonly while enjoying a truly green future. Speaking of a green future, perhaps Desonie and others might feel a bit better after reading the paper, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (Robinson, Robinson, & Soon) from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in which the authors conclude, "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed." I don't know that they are quite to the 90 percent approval rating of other more popular hypotheses, but I kind of like it and it sounds better than drinking the purple Kool-Aid. John McMahon

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.