The two letters published in Friday’s newspaper regarding the climate need a reply. It seems that carbon dioxide is the big bad villain.

When we burn coal, we are returning to the atmosphere the carbon that was used to grow ancient trees, which were then changed into coal. When we make Portland cement, we are freeing the CO2 that was locked up in the shells of ancient sea creatures, which eventually became limestone.

Nature had been sequestering this carbon and in the process had been lowering the amount present in the atmosphere. Keep in mind that our knowledge of the composition of the atmosphere spans less than 300 years; we didn’t even know that there was such a thing as CO2 when the United States was founded. Some estimates that I have seen placed the amount in the atmosphere at around 280 parts per million at the start of the Industrial Revolution. I have also seen statements that a CO2 level of between 100 ppm and 120 ppm is not enough to maintain the green plants that provide us with the oxygen to which we have become addicted. We just may have preserved life on this planet by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Fortunately, the two favorite ways of generating electric energy by the “climate change” people require the addition of a prodigious amount of CO2 that will be added to the atmosphere. The millions of windmills that will be required are all mounted to a gigantic ball of concrete. The solar cells all require vast mining operations (more CO2).

Back in the Dark Ages (early 1990s) I had an opportunity to read a report that examined an assortment of ways to generate power for the electric grid. The “name of the game” was to determine which was most benign to the environment. Methods considered included thermal power plants powered by nuclear, coal or natural gas, hydro-electric, wind mills, tidal dams and other methods, i.e., harnessing the energy of the ocean by using the temperature difference between the warm surface water and the cold water of the ocean deeps. In the end, the winner was a thermal power plant using natural gas.

I have seen many statements that “scientists say that CO2 causes global warming.” I have also seen reports that claim to show that effect with many equations, usually “CO2 is bad.” One report that I saw denied the “CO2 is bad” claim. It also had many equations. I have also seen explanations of “relativity” and “quantum theory” in words that were understandable. Why can’t we have a similar examination of the CO2 contribution to weather?

John C. Vaughan

Frederick

(51) comments

Greg F

Two words for those like the author: Wilful stupidity. Really....so 97% of all scientists are wrong and don't know what they're talking about, while in the meantime, the deniers of those scientists are either paid by fossil fuel industries, friends with them or legislators in those areas, or otherwise benefit by the continuing pumping out of CO2. To the author...go take a few science classes or go back into your cave.

MD1756

Why does the FNP publish letters with blatantly false information? The writer states "Keep in mind that our knowledge of the composition of the atmosphere spans less than 300 years; ..." WRONG. Using ice core sampling we know the composition we know the composition going back 2.7 million years (maybe more by now) (see: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages).

awteam2000

It has been over 300 years since smoking was introduced in Europe, yet only in the past generation have we become aware of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and many other medical conditions.

Almost 7 billion people now live on Earth. Rapid growth of the human population, especially over the last 300 years, is one of the most remarkable trends in population change ever observed. Demographers project that world population will rise to 9 billion by 2050 and level off somewhere between 9–12 billion people by the end of the century.

One of the byproducts of economic development has been the production of pollution — products and waste materials that are harmful to human and ecological health. The rise of pollution corresponds to the increased use of petroleum in the twentieth century, as new synthetic products such as plastics, pesticides, solvents, and other chemicals, were developed and became central to our lives. Many air pollutants, including nitrogen and sulfur oxides, fine particulates, lead, carbon monoxide, and ground-level ozone come from coal and oil consumption by power plants and automobiles. Heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and arsenic, are produced from mining, the burning of fossil fuels, and the manufacture of certain products like metals, paints, and batteries, all affecting climate changes.

Yes, climate change is a threat to our populations.

Climate and pollution pose a number of potential risks. One of the most commonly cited examples is the potential spread and rise of infectious diseases. The recent coronavirus may be a sign of climate change affects, lowering resistance to pathogens in our environment.

gabrielshorn2013

Just one minor correction aw. It's three generations ago for the tobacco warning. Led by then Surgeon General Luther Terry with the help of an advisory committee, the 1964 landmark report linked smoking cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including lung cancer and heart disease.

gary4books

Longer than that. It goes back to the 1700s. Wikipedia writes: "From the 1890s onwards, associations of tobacco use with cancers and vascular disease were regularly reported.[14] In 1930, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published[18][17] a metaanalysis citing 167 other works to link tobacco use to lung cancer.[17] Lickint showed that lung cancer sufferers were likely to be smokers. He also argued that tobacco use was the best way to explain the fact that lung cancer struck men four or five times more often than women (since women smoked much less),[18] and discussed the causal effect of smoking on cancers of the liver and bladder.

More observational evidence was published throughout the 1930s, and in 1938, Science published a paper showing that tobacco users live substantially shorter lives. It built a survival curve from family history records kept at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. This result was ignored or incorrectly explained away.[14]

An association between tobacco and heart attacks was first mentioned in the 1930; a large case–control study found a significant association in 1940, but avoided saying anything about cause, on the grounds that such a conclusion would cause controversy and doctors were not yet ready for it.

DickD

Women didn't smoke back in the 40's and 50's, it just was not lady like. And cigarettes were called "coffin nails".

awteam2000

My bad, 2 scores, 1 decade and 6 years ago.

Boyce Rensberger

Yes, and a generation before that of abundant evidence in the medical literature.

threecents

It wasn't until the late 1990s though that tobacco companies finally admitted nicotine was addictive and cigarettes caused cancer.

gabrielshorn2013

Missed the last paragraph. Coronavirus is not related to global warming. It is based on dietary customs (eating exotic wild animals such as bats, pangolins, and civets) in China, and world interconnectivity via air travel. Add human immune systems that are naive to this virus (and other pathogens), results in the current situation.

awteam2000

So you think man has just gathered a taste for exotic wild animals just recently? Exotic is something foreign, unfamiliar. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses. Some cause illness in people, and others, such as canine and feline coronaviruses, only infect animals. Rarely, animal coronaviruses that infect animals have emerged to infect people and can spread between people. This is suspected to have occurred for the virus that causes COVID-19. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) are two other examples of coronaviruses that originated from animals and then spread to people. More likely spread by a pet.

awteam2000

What might be exotic to us isn’t exotic to one familiar with that diet. Man has been eating what we might consider exotic for thousands of years -over and -over and - over again with their immune system’s able to address pathogens. Obviously a new virus was introduced that their immune system wasn’t prepare for. That means that something changed.

jsklinelga

awteam

For the most part I think people would agree with this post. The last part may be a stretch which goes directly to the writer's point. Where is the clear cut definitive data? The conclusive, not the theoretical. How serious is the problem ?

If we really are in the midst of a climate emergency I would think the County Council could do more than recommend a study group.If they were to recommend some drastic measures could they prove the need? Yes we have a problem but the real question is how serious and what are the absolutely essential actions needed to address the problem? The writer is correct. We need simple conclusive facts not hypotheticals. .

MD1756

Rome will burn as the deniers fiddle about. Death and taxes are certainties most everything else is probabilities. I think we've identified that climate change is a serious issue with high enough probability that it needs immediate action. In any event, what is wrong with the concept of cleaning up after oneself.

DickD

We knew about the harm of cigarettes a long time ago. aw.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87 

Cigarettes were recognized as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandizing the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denied propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established. The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilization. Cigarettes cause about 1 lung cancer death per 3 or 4 million smoked, which explains why the scale of the epidemic is so large today. Cigarettes cause about 1.5 million deaths from lung cancer per year, a number that will rise to nearly 2 million per year by the 2020s or 2030s, even if consumption rates decline in the interim. Part of the ease of cigarette manufacturing stems from the ubiquity of high-speed cigarette making machines, which crank out 20 000 cigarettes per min. Cigarette makers make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, which means that the value of a life to a cigarette maker is about U.S. $10 000.

Alice Jones

More ramblings from a flat-earther.

DickD

[thumbup][thumbup]

Boyce Rensberger

Let's see if I can make it easier to understand, Mr. Vaughan.

Remember Goldilocks? That was a girl who invaded the home of three residents, a big one, a little one and a medium-sized one. The occupants were away, but this girl went in anyhow and helped herself to whatever she could find. Just to give you one example, she tried sleeping on their beds. One bed was too hard; one was too soft; but one was just right.

The relevant point here, Mr. Vaughan, is not that there is anything inherently good or bad about beds. It's just that they come in a range of hardnesses and that one in the middle of the range might be just right.

Now let's talk about carbon dioxide, a gas that has been in air for many billions of years. Nobody says that particular gas is bad, just that too little of it is bad for (to use your example) green plants and that too much of it is bad for the climate that we humans prefer.

Why? Plants require at least some carbon dioxide to live and grow. But, from the human perspective, too much carbon dioxide makes the air and water temperatures too hot for many things (actually for many plants, as well). What has proven optimal for both plants and people is a concentration of carbon dioxide in what some (even climate scientists) call the Goldilocks zone--neither too little nor too much but, instead, just right.

DickD

Not only a good analysis, Boyce, but an entertaining one too.

Piedmontgardener

Ah, the wikipedia, trumpian education speaks. I'm looking forward to a future that involves specialists who have scientific training leading public discussion and being respected. I've had quite enough of unlearned opinions being offered as factual discussion on these matters. Reminds me of something my MIT Professor uncle told me :).

gary4books

Need a good explanation? This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Kelpfarming

4 billion year old planet they tell us. But suddenly its fragile and needs mostly Northern EUropean elite to save it? Goo goo gah gah. Yeh right. Human egos are big, but the earth is bigger. ALL their predictions NEVER come true. Peak gas..NOT. FIsh all gone by 1990..not. Because these people really think little of the REAL scientists who improve humanity through innovation and technology..not term papers and predictions. That what politicians do to take over private industry. Because we just know gubment does things os much better...rationing leads to lecturing about consumption and what you really need...kinda like them big bad Church states that NEVER existed. CHeers

marinick1

[thumbup]

gary4books

Government does do some things much better when there is no tprofit to be gained. When properly done, it can regulate quality of products and even build stockpiles of face masks and get vaccines ready for when they will be needed. Not much profit in that, unless you want "Get your virus cure for a million dollars a shot."

jsklinelga

gary4books

Slightly perplexed by your comment. Does the government have factories that make face masks? Or at the very least have non profit corporations that produce stock piled items for every potential emergency? Or some super computer that can predict the next strain of virus to expect so vaccines can be developed before the virus even materializes????

gary4books

Do it? Or organize the funds to hire it done? Or both? We have a history of strategic stockpiles to do for the public what commerce refuses to do. The idea of seven years of food is from the Bible. But the Eisenhower administration (not what we would call flaming liberals) had years of food in storage for price controls. we could have lived through several years of crop failures. And crops do fail. Now we may want to stockpile helium and even lithium to name two important materials. as for a supercomputer will you take the word of bill gates who was super with computers. In 2015 he predicted a global epidemic. Or do you want to deny it is happening? "Just go to work and get better.." But the government, properly staffed, can anticipate problems and have us ready to face them if properly funded. That is the opposite of starving the beast and drown it.

Kelpfarming

awww, not in multi cultural societies with too many competing interests. Japan, Norway and Switzerland...healthy wealthy and wisest. Hmm, what are they lacking? CHeers

mrnatural1

[thumbup][thumbup] gary.

The Grape of Wrath

The planet isn't fragile. No one debates that. It's the life on it that's fragile.

threecents

[thumbup][thumbup]FCPSP, Evolution happens, and we don't want to be on the wrong side of that.

mamlukman

[thumbup]

Kelpfarming

Nonsense. The earth and living things on it were here THOUSANDS of years before you and will be after you. ARrogance, baby

DickD

4 billion years?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

The similarities between all present day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species, living and extinct, have diverged through the process of evolution. More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[1] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[2][3] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[4] of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.[5] However, a May 2016 scientific report estimates that 1 trillion species are currently on Earth, with only one-thousandth of one percent described.

Boyce Rensberger

You might want to check on the fish situation. Some 90 percent of global fish stocks are gone or depleted below commercial usability.

Comment deleted.
Boyce Rensberger

I didn't define or approve anything. I'm just relaying what the fisheries industry says and what marine biologists report.

By the way, where do you farm your kelp?

jsklinelga

Mr. Vaughan,

I looked up the amount of actual sea rise along Maryland's shores. This popped to the top:

"Sea level rise, a consequence of global climate change, threatens property, livelihoods, and even lives on Maryland's coasts. Studies show that sea levels are already rising around Maryland. Scientists have forecasted an increase of as much as 2.1 feet in the Chesapeake Bay by 2050."

Yet the real rise between 2000 and 2050 may be only 0.8 feet.. It has risen .3 in the last 30 years. So relating back to CO2, YES it would be nice to have a clearer picture.

Science is a tool. But contrary to some thinking it is not God. Clear, precise data is what is useful. And as far as the Theory of relativity in simple terms. The science of Cosmology has recently been thrown a huge curve. The ancient theories from the 20th century may be discarded as there is now a 99% likely hood that the universe is not flat.

gary4books

So? Not flat? What difference will it make?

jsklinelga

gary4books

The big bang theory may be discarded but Christ;s words from 2000 years ago are still relevant today and have never been proven to be false. Just saying...

The Grape of Wrath

Neither have Mohammad's.

Boyce Rensberger

Well, actually, Jesus proves himself false if you accept the versions of what he said in John 13:34 and Luke 14:26. Or how about comparing Matthew 19:19 and Matthew 10:35. I could go on, but maybe this is enough to get you into more serious Bible study.

public-redux

Actually, those words have never been proven to be Jesus's.

jsklinelga

Boyce

Luke 14:26 has always been a topic of debate. But taken in context with the rest of the chapter the meaning is a little clearer but I will not hide behind tricks.It is difficult to reconcile and would need a larger forum to discuss The verse about families being at odds could not be more apparent and relevant then in our present time. One thing that is not in the Bible is that God is unconditional love. His love is conditional. But as a servant whether you hate or love your family of enemies you are commanded the most perfect commandment: Forgive and love. It is God that is the final judge. You as servants are to offer Grace, to the best of your ability, perhaps saving a enemy in the end.

Luke 19:19 and the following lines are what I have followed my adult life and that has made all the difference. I so wanted to know the truth so like a Camel needing to go through the eye of a needle I got rid of all my possessions. And I found the truth.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Rensberger, I enjoy it when you quote scripture. Let go to the first two comparisons. Luke uses the greek word for hate "μισώ". Now μισώ has only one prime meaning "detest" "abhor" and the Hebrew word for hate"שנאה" has the same meanings.

But one problem Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The Aramaic term "sna"means to hate ” in the sense of “detest” and “despise.” Nonetheless, sna has five prime meanings: “to hate,” “to stand up straight,” “to put out a candle or light,” “a threshing floor,” and “to set to one’s side.”

Thus, by using the last meaning of "sna", we see what Jesus truly said: “He who comes to me and does not put to one’s side his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life cannot be a disciple to me.” Lk 14:26 Aramaic text.

So compare it with John 13:34 :

Having announced that Jesus would go to the cross and be crucified . Jesus began to lay out what he expected of them after his leaving. The commandment to love was not new to the disciples. It is found in Deuteronomy 6:5 command to love God and Leviticus 19:18 command to love one's neighbor as oneself.(also in Matt 22:34-40, Rom 13;8-10,Gal 5:14, James 2:8).

Jesus command regarding love presented a new standard for two reasons. (1) it was sacrificial love modeled after his love (2) It is produced through the New Covenant by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit( Jeremiah 31:29-34, Ezek 36 24-26 Gal 5:22).

I can go on ,do you want more serious Bible study?

jsklinelga

Boyce

I made an error in responding to you. Instead of Luke 19:19 I meant Matthew 19:19 which you alluded to. I am glad I got no response because this is not really the forum for that discussion. Sorry about the error. I was rushing out to a grand child's basketball game.

shiftless88

Why do people claim that God loves unconditionally but then sends you to hell if you do not meet one condition?

jsklinelga

shiftless

People claim God is unconditional love but that is no where to be found in the Bible; The message throughout is God's love is conditional. Believe in God, Trust in God, Obey God, Love God, Fear God and you are rewarded. Love evil, mock God. disobey God and hate God and you will also be compensated accordingly.

public-redux

jsk, Well said! The god of the bible can be an immoral jerk, as you have pointed out.

rpkrauss

JK I am genuinely curious about the data/research that has thrown the science of cosmology a huge curve. I did a brief (very brief ) search regarding changes in the flat universe theory and couldn’t find anything referring to a dramatic change in thinking. So could you provide me some source material so I can do some independent research (you probably remember I’m hung up on that). Thanks in advance.

gary4books

https://www.universetoday.com/143956/new-research-suggests-that-the-universe-is-a-sphere-and-not-flat-after-all/

Greg F

Hey RP...obviously you are NOT curious, you just like to troll people, or you would have gone out and looked for the plethora of information from scientific outlets to that effect. I'm done giving you information like Gary did just to serve your trolling interests. Go out and find some independent sites that have info, not those affiliated with flat-earthers, Fox, Hannity, Christianity or similar. Those who wrote that Christian BS didn't even know where the sun went at night when written. Created in 7 days...yeah...right.

DickD

Are you a percenter, Jim?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!