Mixing science and religion
reminds us of Galileo

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Is Global Warming A Religious Belief?
 
Why is it that the believers in the human causes of global warming are threatened by science and scientific facts to the contrary, such as presented by Mr. Clifford Dukes in his letter to the editor in Monday's edition?  A classic example is the response of your reader, Mr. H. Franz, in Tuesday's A.M. Costa Rica, that "the debate is over."  As your reader Bob Normand expressed in Wednesday's edition,"[m]aking assertions that a scientific fact is so does not make it so."
 
To some, a belief that global warming is man-made has become a religious belief.  History teaches us to tread carefully when we confuse religion with science.  When Galileo in the 17th century expressed the view - supported by scientific facts - that the earth is not the center of the universe, he was convicted of heresy and given a life sentence of house arrest.  And, there are some today who continue to believe - contrary to scientific facts - that the earth is flat.  I wonder if adherents of the view that global warming is man-made have become contemporary examples of true believers, as described by Eric Hoffer in his book, "The True Believer"? 
 
Mr. Dukes' letter is a serious effort to present scientific facts in support of the view that global warming is not man-made, but is largely the result of other causes, primarily water vapor.  If he is correct, doesn't that suggest that we need to re-think our solutions to global warming, especially before we decide to impose a carbon tax on fuels?

Environmental scientist seeks
clean sources of energy

Dear A.M. Costa Rica

The only thing that came to mind when I read the editorial by Axel Marquardt is that "ignorance is bliss." The editorial by Clifford Dukes has some relevant information, but his statement about "current means of determining temperature" gives me the impression that he is not aware of the numerous satellites that orbit the earth with sensors that measure surface temperature, surface albedo, aerosols, and numerous other variables that have a bearing on global climate change. Also, his example of an ice cube melting in a glass of water must be amusing to any scientist who understands the forcings (natural and anthropogenic) and the likely results of "global warming."

Although it would have little bearing on understanding the results of increased global warming, I suggest that he should melt an ice cube in a separate container then pour the resulting water into another container with water to see if the water level would rise.

I suggest that both Mr. Dukes and Mr. Marquardt read the book "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen (ISBN ISBN 978-1-60819-200-7) In addition to explaining some of the basic concepts of "global warming" and evidence thereof, Dr. Hansen documented the manner by which the Bush Administration suppressed his reporting of scientific research. Of course that was not surprising in consideration that both Bush and Cheney represent the petroleum industry.

Yes, I am one of the 17,000 plus "concerned scientists" who concur with the importance of developing clean energy sources rather to continue the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. It seems to me that even the skeptics of global warming would also want to do this if only to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

 
Layman asks some questions
that may provoke debate

Dear A.M. Costa Rica:

Being a writer without benefit of scientific education, training, background, or any other evidence of knowledge in the area of global warming, I have followed the "letters" page with interest as the various "experts" checked in. Since none gave education or vocational credentials, I must assume they are not certified "warming scientists" and, thus, I consider myself an equal in this fray — especially in that it seems tempers are fraying. After careful review of the letters by Messrs Dukes, Franz, Marquardt, and Normand, I pose the following. Sirs:

1. Has the presence and degree of salt in the seawater been taken into account when discussing the melting rate of the Antarctica? It seems to me that this may be of exceptional merit and have the potential for accelerating the mean temperature at the Meridian. As a follow-up to this postulation I ask why there has no consideration been given to the fresh waters of the Amazon River as a means of ameliorating said salinity and provide resistance to the global warming effect in that fresh water is of a higher temperature than is ice?

2. In that ice has a different specific gravity, could not that also influence the presence of algae when the ice was formed and subsequently released with melting? This could have a serious impact upon sea animals which in turn will affect and effect the human food chain. It seems to me that this should be given a priority in the presentation of any hypothesis.  

Although a layman in this field, I recognize that the above questions may provoke contentious debate among the warming elite, and I hasten to offer my services as a public conduit: one who can distill the gobbledygook of  "To warm, or not to warm, that is the question for this age."