Re. “Climate-change science is immune to politics,” Mailbag, (Sept. 3): Letter writer Jamie Dow claims science has proven man-made global warming and that this conclusion has nothing to do with politics. I believe she is mistaken.
Most of the reports regarding global warming are issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many of its 3,000 members are not scientists but simply United Nations political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have often disputed the panel’s findings, but their opposing comments have not been included in any of the U.N.'s published reports.
It is significant that 37,000 scientists have disputed man-made global warming claims, and more than 17,000 signed a petition stating their objections to the IPCC panel’s methods and conclusions. Quotes from their paper and petition state the following:
“The empirical evidence ... of earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.”
I began to question man-made global warming alarmists after many of the statements in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” proved to be faulty, and became more suspicious when leaked emails from a British university indicated a lack of honesty among the scientists.
One such email warned: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
I decided to do a more intense investigation of this issue and found the historical climate patterns of Iceland and Greenland enlightening. Greenland was once green, but that country’s climate changed, and it is now largely ice. On the other hand, Iceland was once a frigid country, but centuries ago its climate changed and caused it to become warm and lush. Those changes happened before man was producing any pollutants that might have contributed to the dramatic changes.
Finally, it appears global-warming activism is indeed political and possibly contrived. Consider that the U.N. and specific nations want to establish a treaty that would include a global “cap and trade” policy. The United States would be charged for having more emissions, and our money would go to less industrialized nations with fewer emissions. Basically the U.N. and cooperating nations want to initiate a financial social engineering program of massive proportions. They have not yet succeeded in their global plan.
However, the Obama administration hopes to adopt a national cap-and-trade system similar to Europe’s emissions policy. The government will decide how many tons of CO2 can be emitted and then auction off permits to emitters of greenhouse gases. Expected proceeds [tax increases on all consumers] over 10 years will be roughly $645 billion.
California has already initiated a local cap-and-trade program. It may account for some of the higher commodity prices in our state.
Yes, climate change is a known fact: Earth has and likely will continue to experience warming and cooling trends. However, there are reasons to question the premise that man can cause climate change. It simply is not an established scientific fact, as many have been led to believe.
As to the issue of it being politically motivated, I find it hard to argue that there has indeed been major political involvement with profound ramifications.
I’m solidly behind U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s position, and am impressed that the Costa Mesa Republican has objectively sought out all the facts rather than blindly accept the politically correct version of this important issue.
BONNIE O’NEIL lives in Newport Beach.