Letters to the Editor - April 14, 2012

Letters from Lavette Parks, Mary Ann Novak, Charles Strong, Rich Chandler, Mark Van Hoef, Tony Hartford, Dan Hinmon

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .


Don Dix

Mr. Strong believes man's release of CO2 is responsible for global warming (Al Gore would be proud). That premise is quite easily refuted by simple logic.

By atmospheric volume, CO2 is a mere .039% (less than 4 out of 10,000)

According to NASA, 96% plus of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally (volcanoes, evaporation, forest fires, plant respiration, microbial respiration, and other animals).

Man contributes less than 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, a piddling amount.

So the theory, if believed, is that the 4% contribution of CO2 by man overrides the 96% that naturally occurs and makes man the cause. That is hardly a logical conclusion.

And the catch is we have no control over the other CO2 contributors, unless Al has figured out how to cap volcanoes, tarp the waters, eliminate the fires, and stop respiration of plants, animals, and microbes. Global warming advocates are chasing the only contributor they have a chance to control, and it's all about control.

But without all these 'natural occurrences', atmospheric CO2 would be basically non-existent. And there is no living thing on this planet that can survive without the presence of CO2.

Remember, this planet was set up and operating long before man happened upon it, and the warm and cold periods have always been a constant. If the climate is changing (again), well that's just natural, and not caused by man.


So what is your conclusion, Mr. Dix? That we should keep burning fossil fuels? That we should continue to poison our air and water? That we should continue to enrich our enemies in Saudi Arabia and other peroleum-producing countries?

Don Dix


Do you really believe that CO2 is a poison or pollutant? It is an essential to all life on Earth, so you run with that.

Human contribution is less than 4% of the total atmospheric CO2 (which is less than 4% of the total atmosphere). Could you or anyone explain how all the other large contributors of CO2 can be over-ridden by man's paltry amount. Humans are on the bottom of the chain, but humans are also the only source that might be controlled.

Ice core, tree ring and ocean sediment samples reveal CO2 lags the temperature increase -- by an average of 800 years (Al 'conveniently' left out that fact). How does that in any way make CO2 the cause of warming? And that the Earth was still under the influence of the Little Ice Age as late as 1850, it 'naturally' follows there will be a warming period (hopefully).

The Medieval Warm Period (preceding the LIA) was a time of good health for mankind. And the same samples prove it was warmer then than now (and many less humans). In contrast, the LIA saw plagues, diseases, and a general lack of health. Which would you desire?

Maybe you can help here. I have always wondered about the statement 'the debate is over'. Could you fill in these blanks? When was it, where did it occur, and who was involved? It seems a little strange that such an important event would be so difficult to research, unless it never happened.

Bottom line, man can't control the climate, but some want to control man in the name of climate. No sale!

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS