Inconvenient truths and questions
Dear Editor:In response to K.C. Johnson’s July 6 letter, I offer some inconvenient truths and questions of my own.First, their is no scientific consensus on the cause of the 1-degree Fahrenheit rise in global surface temperatures over the past century. Nor is their consensus regarding any future temperature changes. At least five major U.S. petitions to the contrary of those oft-repeated claims have been promulgated, the largest of which was drafted by Frederick Seitz.Dr. Seitz sat on the IPCC board until he tired of battling their bias toward proving anthropogenic warming. His Oregon Petition has been signed by more than 19,700 U.S. scientists and engineers, two thirds of whom hold graduate degrees.Secondly, corn-based ethanol is no panacea. You are welcome to do the math that I averaged from dozens of conflicting websites, but apparently due to the energy spent in fertilizing, planting, harvesting, milling, and distilling corn ethanol, 1 million Btu of the final product creates about 4.5 times as much carbon dioxide as does one million Btu generated from gasoline. Surface runoff of toxic petroleum products causes additional harm to our water supply.Third: There is a major downside associated with Kyoto Protocol adoption that is rarely mentioned amidst the relentless disaster predictions that pour over us like water in a shower. The cost the 1998 Gore-Clinton Department of Energy estimated annual Kyoto adoption would cost the U.S. $430 billion. What do we get for that investment? According to the IPCC charts, we prevent an additional temperature increase of 0.1 degree Fahrenheit by 2050, at a cost of 20 trillion dollars.K.C. and others who spend their hard-earned money to witness Al Gore’s latest campaign video might consider some questions to wit:- Can your family absorb a 70 percent higher utility bill and an additional 65-cent cost per gallon of gasoline amongst other carbon taxes?- Where do all of those tax dollars go?- Why were the poorest half of the 20 largest carbon dioxide-emitting countries not required to sign the treaty?- 35 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions emanate from electricity generation. Why shouldn’t we follow the lead of our French allies, who generate 77 percent of their electricity with nuclear power? – 31 percent of emissions comes from transportation. Couldn’t we then incentivize Americans to convert our automobile fleet to hybrid electric vehicles, thereby eliminating Mideast oil imports?Finally, what scares you true believers most … catastrophic global warming predictions, or 2008 presidential candidate Al Gore, D-Tenn.?P.S.: If Helen Klanderud and God have half my sense of humor, Aspen global warming czar Dan Richardson will be given the honor of lighting the new fire hearth in downtown Aspen for its inaugural season.P.P.S.: Great to see old Sue Gray hasn’t lost her command of the vernacular.Russ AndrewsSnowmass
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.