Letters to the Editor

Climate theory deceptive, untrue

My theoretical and experimental scientific background leads me to be incredulous of global warming predictions, but not surprised that the scientific community would dupe and be complicit with the media, agenda-driven universities and politicians (for example, Sen. Lindsey Graham) who have damaged the world economy and education for generations to come. There have been many casualties from the deception: world prosperity, nuclear power, coal power, oil exploration, food corn, plastics and automobiles. They have been successful in halting any meaningful energy production in the U.S., which threatens our national security because nations without energy will serve nations with energy. "Global warming" fraud cannot be stopped without the endorsers looking foolish. Predictions are based on only computer models which have never been qualified by experiment.

Reasoned scientific studies of the planet are endorsed, but there are limits of applicability. Red-flag common sense parameters should have rung a bell; most notably, the small rate of increase of temperature with time (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade), in conjunction with global modeling and analysis of a very complicated dynamic planet. Carbon dioxide has been singled out as the culprit, when the main absorber of infrared in the atmosphere is water vapor. According to Richard Lindzen of MIT (or any other reputable climatologist), if all the carbon dioxide were to disappear, we still would be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect because of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Besides, the Earth is probably starved for carbon dioxide as it represents only about 0.00037 of the atmosphere. Many scientists believe that the changing solubility of carbon dioxide with water temperature is the reason for the observed change in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is, ocean temperature increase causes more atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than more atmospheric carbon dioxide causing higher ocean temperature. Colder soda has more fizz than warmer soda.

Postulating global warming, rising ocean levels, droughts and floods, tornadoes and hurricanes are easy, but compiling a scientific model to predict these phenomena from basic principles is without credibility. To predict climate, one must be able to model the atmosphere, the invisible water vapor in the air, the clouds, the ocean and its movement coupled to the moving atmosphere as a function of time. Models, upon which global warming hysteria are based, have not been authenticated by experiment, nor will they ever.

According to Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: computer simulations of climate must track over 5 million independent variables relevant to the entire climate system over time - these involve sun processes, the motions of the Earth, ocean currents and atmospheric gas and water vapor motion; a very dynamic environment.

Considering the complexity of the dynamic planet and the very small postulated catastrophic increase of .2 degree Fahrenheit per decade, I need help rationalizing an analytical approach that would lead to planet weather control via carbon dioxide control.

The man-made global warming theory is based only upon computer models and Henny Penny; nothing more, but spend, baby, spend, and make sure it is distributed to those according to their needs.

The writer lives in Myrtle Beach.

  Comments