Opinion
Let Us Let Go of Restaurant

Folks Around Here Ready To Help Out

Co-op CEO Challenges Editorial

Letters To the Editor

Letters To the Editor

Editorial: Electric Co-Op Kidding Itself

Guest View: Loving Nation Means Those in It

Fire Response Shows Spirit

Discuss Drinking Before the Prom

Letters To the Editor

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Letters to the Editor

By

    Much Ado About
    Greenhouse Gases
    In a seemingly conspiratorial triple play manner, Messrs. Moffitt, Weckerle, and Clancy (Telegraph Letters, February 14, 2008) are practicing an old political ploy, i.e., if you don't like the "message" but lack the credentials, experience, or knowledge to discredit it, then discredit the messenger(s).
    It is possible they overlooked the fact the paper I referred to (found at: www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf) and quoted from (Telegraph Letter January 24, 2008) was written by three well-known scientists (Drs. A. Robinson, V. Robinson, and W. Soon). They are heavily involved in the medical field and have advanced degrees in biochemistry and astrophysics. The paper was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPS) for peer review. Certainly these authors have knowledge and credibility in evaluating effects of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) or water vapor (H2O) and a slightly higher environmental temperature have on the well-being of humans and animals ... as they did in their report. This was not necessarily based on their knowledge, but on documents referenced in the report. After all, it is more of a chemistry problem than a climatology problem.
    If Messr. Moffitt, Weckerle, or Clancy are taking exception to the conclusions of the report, then I look forward to reading their formal rebuttal peer review with their contradictory scientific proof (not politically biased articles from Web sites or Science, Discover or Newsweek magazines).
    I also think they are behind the times. Information is available which is more recent than that 10-year-old IPCC "consensus" that said it was "likely" that carbon dioxide was acting like a greenhouse gas and causing global warming (they never said how much). Examples of new info are: 90 percent of the American Meteorological Foundation members reject the idea; of some 539 new papers written on the subject, only 7 percent agree with that old IPCC consensus; and, a majority of the original IPCC members have recanted their original decision and many have resigned from that body.
    Incidentally Mr. Moffitt, the "An Inconvenient Truth" movie I referred to was the work of ex-VP Al Gore, not M. Moore ... and the British court release (mentioned in my January 24th "Letter") detailing the judge's decision, on the erroneous and fictitious statements in that movie, may be found at: NewsBusters.org.
    Most importantly, the revelation that the historical ice core sample records, when plotted on an expanded time scale, show the global temperature rises occurred before the rises in atmospheric CO2! This can be seen very clearly in the JPS paper, totally discrediting Gore's book and movie, thus making the whole CO2 scare much ado about nothing.
    Using my own experience and knowledge from 15 years of gathering and analyzing technical data as a test engineer, along with 15 years of teaching Thermodynamics (specialty in Gas Dynamics), I drew some conclusions about the effects of global warming greenhouse gases (GWGG), generated by fossil fuel combustion, by analyzing data from Meteorology texts, NOAA and EPA. Those sources say CO2 constitutes about 5 percent of GWGG (H2O is about 90 percent) and fossil fuel combustion generates about 6 percent of the CO2 in atmosphere (the oceans generate about 60 percent). Unless I was sleeping in math class, 6 percent of 5 percent is 0.3 percent, which says if we totally stop fossil fuel combustion, we would only eliminate about a third of 1 percent of the GWGG. It technically isn't that simple because the effects of GWGG involves differences in the various gas characteristics at the various frequencies of solar radiation, but if my approach is off by as much as 300 percent, it is still less then 1 percent reduction in global warming by stopping all fossil fuel (gas, gasoline, oil, coal) combustion (fueling: autos, electric power plants, home heating, etc.). Is that worth it just to make a group of environmentally religious Earth worshippers feel good?
    The bottom line is: yes, there are indications that some global warming is occurring (as it has been for about 20,000 years on this cycle of nature), but there are no data available to prove that man's use of fossil fuel is the main culprit. Incidentally, NOAA just released data that the 2007 average global temperature was 1 degree colder and involved such anomalies as snowstorms in places like Rio de Janeiro. There are data available (the JPS paper and others) showing any warming is probably caused by a gradual average increase in the Sun's output of 0.005 percent per year (that's an additional 200 quadrillion BTU received by the Earth every day!).
    This CO2 fraud has been going on for about 10 years and enough people have been convinced, by the fascist-type environmentalists, to cause drastic effects on our lives and our economy. The ridiculous ethanol craze has caused dramatic increases in the demand for, and the price of, corn. Because corn is a basic livestock food, prices have increased as much as 80 percent on meats, milk, and their by-products ... and in some countries, shortages of corn-based food products are causing starvation. This has affected all parts of our economy to the point of a talk of recession. But, snake oil salesmen (like A. Gore) are laughing all the way to the bank, having made millions of dollars brokering "Certified Emission Reductions" (the politically correct term for "carbon credits"). If we join into the Kyoto Accord fiasco, it is estimated our taxes will increase by 1,000 percent in order to buy CER from poor countries (as the Prime Minister of Australia recently found out for his country and so rescinded his signature to the Accord). Millions of tax dollars are going toward studies of ways to "sequester" the excess CO2, although Mother Nature provides us hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean which do that quite nicely and automatically ... at no cost to the taxpayers. The U.S. Energy Bill of 2008 (newly passed, signed, sealed, and delivered by our government) in four years will make incandescent light bulbs no longer available for purchase in this country.
    Beam me up, Scotty, and let's get away from this nonsense!
    KEN JOHNSON
    Sandia Park
    Former Councilor
    Thankful to Town
    To my supporters and the citizens of Edgewood:
    I wish to thank each and everyone one of you for all of your support beginning before incorporation of the Town of Edgewood. I believe the governing body, the people of Edgewood and the surrounding area citizens have placed Edgewood in a position to be a shining example of what a community can achieve. But, we are not there yet. Now is the time to pull together and help the governing body succeed for everyone.
    For the most part, I had fun and with the wonderful help of town staff, fellow governing body members and the general public I saw several of my initiated projects completed. Nine years of habit will be hard to break, but I will spend more time with family and friends to ease my conversion.
    Again, thank you and please work together for the future.
    Respectfully,
    CHUCK RING
    Edgewood Town Council, 1999-2008
    Outgoing Mayor
    Offers His Thanks
    My sincere thanks to all who supported me in the Edgewood mayoral race. My campaign staff worked tirelessly, my campaign donors gave generously, and my friends encouraged enthusiastically. Let's all take an active part in our community's future to keep Edgewood on the move.
    With deep gratitude,
    HOWARD CALKINS
    Edgewood
    Biomass Plant Not
    Good for Valley
    I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed biomass plant in the Estancia Valley by Western Water & Power. This ill-conceived project will threaten our forests, air, and water. For those of us who live in the Estancia Valley, the idea of creating energy for Albuquerque from the damage of our natural resources adds insult to injury. How can this be a part of any "Blue Sky" initiative?
    ANN ADAMS
    Tajique
    Power Plant Will
    Pollute Paradise
    I am a New Mexican by birth (3 generations), and own land in 4th of July Canyon in the Manzano Mountains.
    I work and live 10 months of the year in New York City.
    I live with the problems of overgrowth and pollution every day and relish my time in the Estancia Valley every summer away from the big city.
    Now a group of investors, probably most not even connected to New Mexico, want to build a power plant in the valley.
    This plant will pollute the air and the groundwater.
    The traffic of diesel-burning trucks to and from the plant will also pollute the air.
    There are cleaner ways of creating electricity.
    Please, let's be smart about this. Once we go down this path then we don't go back to clean air and water.
    DAVID FRITZ
    Manzano Mountains
    Global Warming
    Voices Too P.C.
    Letter from Bruce Moffitt, John Weckerle and Bob Clancy concerning global warming must be addressed.
    There are many scientific disciplines, including biochemistry, which are needed to study global warming. Unfortunately, many well-qualified scientists are denied a voice by the liberal media, while many unqualified people with no scientific education, such as Al Gore and Michael Moore, are given carte blanche.
    Any intelligent person should realize that the Kyoto Protocol is the goal of the corrupt United Nations. Their agenda is to destroy the economy of the United States and reduce us to a third world nation.
    Careful scrutiny of the mainline scientists mentioned by Mr. Moffitt might indicate that many of them support liberal politicians while others fear the loss of employment or loss of funding if their findings are not politically correct.
    Fox News deserves credit for giving time to Dr. Gray of the University of Colorado. He offers scientific facts to debunk the Michael Moore movie.
    In all fairness, shouldn't the schoolchildren and government employees who were forced to view this movie be forced to see Dr. Gray's analysis?
    JAMES LAMBERT