Close this Advertisement

Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

In Response to 'Global Cooling'

Image courtesy of NASA-JPL
Over three days, this commentary prompted nine readers to send an e-mail this way.

Many of them questioned why Environmental Protection would post such an opinion. While I have answered all of them individually, I would like to share my response with you: We posted the "Global Cooling" letter because it expresses an opinion about a critical environmental topic. We hope to engage readers like you to express their opinions as well.

Eight of the nine readers disagreed with the opinion or our decision to post it, but only one said he would consider an official rebuttal. For your information, we will post any rebuttal responses in the Commentary space that appears on the top right corner of the home page, www.eponline.com. Also for your information, most of the commentary that we offer as a staff comes in the form of the Plantshed blog. We have hosted two guest blogs on this site as well. The Commentary is reserved for contributed, not staff written, pieces.

A technical glitch caused readers some confusion. The current EP management system does not provide a "commentary" or "opinion" tag for the material and it was inadvertently tagged "article," which is incorrect in any case. Our apologies. We are currently working on a new content management system that should correct this issue.

Comment:

The fact that 8 out of 9 readers disagreed with the “Global Cooling Article” posting is a sad commentary on your readership population.

Free speech and most importantly scientific peer review of actual science are essential to the realism and purity of science. The hysteria and proposed legislation based in the incomplete science supposedly proving global warming is an atrocity. Global warming (now climate change) has turned into a political movement completely abandoning all scientific principals long ago.

The fact that these individuals don’t even want you to post the Global Cooling article makes one believe that they are solely political hacks of the Al Gore religion. I believe he (Al Gore) stated “the debate is over.” In true science, the debate is never over.

I applaud the author of Global Cooling and support his conclusions. Might I add that if people think their breath, CO2, is contributing to warming the atmosphere then they are seriously overestimating their importance on the grand and beautiful earth that our Lord created. We must and should protect our earth but not to the detriment of humanity.

Lisa Lamantia
RSO/Reg. Comp. Eng.
EMD, a business unit of Curtiss Wright Flow Control Company

Posted by L.K. Williams, EPonline on May 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Thu, Oct 22, 2009 EHS Manager Denver, CO

Honor the science not the politics and the media hype and bias. Find common ground for the greater good - conservation and energy efficiency is a win-win. Look for the real agenda behind the sound bite and like LA said - follow the money. Then we can find real truth. Poverty is the greatest risk to human health and the environment.

Wed, Oct 21, 2009 Bipender Jindal Columbus, Ohio

Whatever happened to prudent behavior? Just like the war, once it starts - it is all damage control after that and many suffer in the process. Same thing is with Global Warming or Cooling. Regardless if it is happening or not, there is no harm in continuing the research and implementing prudent approaches. Unfortunately, the tone of this debate is all or none. The environmental threshold, if crossed, will create havoc whether due to cooling or warming.

Fri, Oct 16, 2009 Joe

A few points/suggestions: 1 - in science, the debate is never over. Thirty years ago, the next ice age was upon us. Then it was anthropogentic global warming, which morphed into climate change. Now the discussion is about man-made greenhouse gases. It all smacks of "newspeak" and "doublethink." What will it be 30 years from now? I don't know but I'll wager that whatever it is, it will be "anthropogenic." 2 - I urge everyone to find a copy of the BBC's presentation on global warming (the one with "hoax" in the title). Pop it in the DVD player, pop the cap on a cold beer, sit back and relax for 90-minutes, and soak in the science. 3 - to better understand the world, certainly follow the money; but, also follow the power and the politics. For any given policy, find out who stands to advance their adgenda. 4 - get and read any book by Bjorn Lomborg. Finally, a word of caution - between Germany and California, there's lots and lots of "Kool Aid." It's OK to look at it, to listen to it fizz and even examine it, but never, never taste the "Kool Aid!" (My apologies to Kraft Foods.)

Wed, Oct 14, 2009 LA

Perhaps the old adage, "Follow the money to find the reason," applies to some elements of "Global Warming." Some in the financial community applaud carbon trading as new way to increase the wealth of traders and investors. Money is transferred from carbon users, such as industry and consumers, to the government in the form of additional tariffs, surcharges, or taxes. Since the only thing more essential than carbon use for energy is air and water, there is an extremely widespread tax base. Thus, the traders get rich, the government gets more taxes. The only ones who lose are the citizen consumers, who will pay higher prices for energy, transportation, and commodities. Thus, many would say that global warming is critical for governments, such as the U.S., who are struggling to generate new tax revenues out of an already thin economy. An easy way to test this unorthodox hypothesis would be to follow the investments of prominent figures who espouse global warming, and see how many of them stand to benefit financially from it.

Wed, Oct 14, 2009 Straightpath Southern California

Scientific debate MUST include all voices. Otherwise, it is simply echoing popular political thought. The book, "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 years" places a plethora of facts, not opinions, within the easy access of any reader open to facts. I do not "BELIEVE" in global warming or cooling, I believe in facts, with conclusions falling where they may. To ignore historical climactic variations, volcanic events, cyclical solar particle flux densities, and documented evidence is not science, it is a closely held religious belief. If one's religious belief is "global warming," one cannot argue with such a belief. However, like many who understand there is ongoing climactic change that is well documented in over 2,000 years of records, I am absolutely confident that we can be absolutely confident of nothing in this area.

Fri, Jul 31, 2009 Bert Klein Cleveland,Ohio

Lisa Lamantia: You are absolutely correct. In addition may I add that Man-made global warming is a political hoax. The greenhouse gas effect has never been scientifically proved. L *** William Editor is posting one of my comments some were on the site. It will start a real fire storm. The ghg effect was disproved in 1909 by R.W. Wood

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above