Congratulations on your recent article on climate change
Almost all “scientists” believe that human activities increase the rapidity of the warming trend we are experiencing. But a few scientists dispute the beliefs of their colleagues. What should we do?
Let’s accept that the world is warming. That seems undeniable. The consequences are melting ice, rising water levels, changing weather, new health issues, loss of species, etc. Most of these effects seem detrimental to most, but not to all people or all things. If we believe that certain human activities are responsible for a problem and we are right in that belief, we would be foolish not to try to alter those activities.
That is, we would be foolish unless we are in the group who doesn’t think they will suffer from climate change or whatever else is harmful. What difference does it make to miners in west Virginia if polar bears die, or islands are covered with sea water? Why expect the CEO of an oil company to applaud regulation of fossil fuels? Why expect a person or group to change behavior unless they benefit from the change? Change inevitably forces new and often troublesome ways of doing things.
The most eloquent answer was given by John Donne in 1624 , when he wrote “Any man’s death diminishes me.” The proper moral stance seems clear. There is also an ultimately pragmatic reason, related to the fact that everything is constantly changing, and creatures and cultures with poor adaptive skills become extinct; as have many species of birds and other animals, and empires of the Romans, Mongols, Maya, Persians, Egyptians, in fact all the great prior cultures..
Some may consider it noble to die holding onto an established, comfortable way of living. But for many there never has been a comfortable way of living. And even for the fortunate, it seems both wiser and kinder to fashion a world worth living in, not just for oneself, but for most people. If most people are having a tortured life, even the fortunate will suffer.
If those who say our own human behavior is causing problems are correct, and we make appropriate changes, people will be better off; if they are wrong and we make changes that will not slow global warming, but those changes will improve our economy and our quality of life, we will have done as much as we can to control our destiny.
So rather than bicker over the role of humans in the warming of our planet, and continue plunging over the cliff with the other lemmings because that is what has always been done, it makes more sense to discuss the sorts of cultures we want to create, so that we can live well with each other. And to set our miraculous minds and hearts to the task of creating them.
Dr. George Spaeth
A response to ‘Dealing with Climate Change’
I am not accustomed to seeing my name repeated in public print, as it did coming in last week’s Local. In particular, the op-ed: “Dealing with the facts of Climate Change.”
I object to the fact that my first and qualifying sentence, to wit: “Not to be confused nor conflated with locally polluting our atmosphere” was unfortunately missed.
It clearly preceded the controversial title applied to my original letter.
I have made no claim to being a research scientist. My degrees are BME and MBA (Rensselaer and Harvard), earned over 60 years ago.
Rather, I have become a messenger of my beliefs. They are completely represented by a decade-old New York Times bestseller, reprinted in 2008, entitled: ”Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1500 Years,” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.Avery
Widely respected climate scientists in their own right, they produced this compendium of hundreds of years’ worth of international climate studies done around the entire globe.
There are 15 chapters reviewing these from every possible perspective, concluding with exhaustive indicies by each scientist’s name, dates and subjects.
Chapter Six is entitled: “Fraud and Deceit in Selling Man-Made Global Warming.” It revealed how the U.S. government was then already spending $2-billion per year on global warming inspired science grants. These grantees were in turn “writing scary press releases to keep their research funds flowing.”
It finally exposed Al Gore’s specious movie “Inconvenient Truth,” and his improperly-derived “hockey stick” CO2 growth chart.
Not inferring corruption, “on the take” is my taxpayer’s description of those on government-supported payrolls peddling or teaching unproven alarmism.
“Acid Rain” is not “Climate Change.” Neither is particulate matter carried in smog, chimney smoke, or volcanic eruptions. Nor are “greenhouse gasses” whose largest components are water vapor and CO2. These are largely reabsorbed in the oceans and in producing vegetation. Methane and oxides of nitrogen and sulphur are minor components.
But the Paris Accord specifically aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Fortunately, both Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump know better and have found other good reasons not to support the Paris Accord.
A simultaneous editorial last week asked: “Why is Climate Change even a debate?” Perhaps it has yet to be properly defined? How can “Man” by himself correct or undo what he has not actually caused?
“Pollution” qualifies. “Climate Change” does not.
Thanks for support
Friends of the Chestnut Hill Library would like to thank the community for its great support Sunday, Sept. 24.
Our big sale in conjunction with the Fall for the Arts festival was a huge success.
And a very special thank you to Kathlyn Egan and the staff at Tavern on the Hill, who again invited us to set up a table in front of their restaurant where we sold books and got the news out to everyone about our weekly Monday afternoon book sales at the library.
Friends of Chestnut Hill Library