GLOBAL WARMING:
The Debate Continues
Ohio State Alumni Magazine received the following letters in response to "Managing the Meltdown" from the May/June 2007 issue:
ROY ABEL '43
"Managing the Meltdown" is larded with over-the-top language. This approach inhibits the careful weighing of conflicting opinions which are so necessary to the development of public policies in this huge arena. The stature of the university is reflected by the general impression conveyed by this inflammatory rhetoric. In attempting to emphasize what is a very important subject, you may have achieved the reverse.
JOHN HERTZER '61, '62 MR
I'm looking forward to your upcoming article discussing the other side of this issue. I realize the alumni magazine articles are not necessarily science-based and are not peer reviewed, but you owe it to the alumni to present both sides. I suggest you interview many of the reputable climate scientists who question the beliefs of those who preach anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.
The picture of the polar bear on the cover appearing to exist on the last piece of ice is a cheap shot. Polar bears have been around about 200,000 years with the years 900-1300 (AD) being warmer than today. How did those poor bears survive then?
Please cover the fraud behind the "hockey stick curve" of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which seems to be the main support for anthropogenic warming. Also provide information on the levels of carbon dioxide centuries ago when the levels were three to ten times what they are now and that many scientists believe carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator (maybe 800 years). Oh, yes, note that water vapor is about 90% of the greenhouse gases (vs. CO2 being perhaps 5%). And then you should cover the impact of the sun on our climate.
With some of the global warming evangelists now claiming that deniers like me are akin to holocaust deniers, reputable magazines like yours need to provide balanced information.
By the way, I attempt to reduce any pollution I cause without worrying about my "carbon-footprint," and I drive a hybrid car getting about 50 miles per gallon.
RONALD LEE COOK '75
I see the Ohio State Alumni Association has joined tentacles with the Al Gore-ites by shaking in their hip waders over the global warming fiasco. I was particularly impressed with the third paragraph that describes the "harbingers of environmental disaster." I consider myself to be extremely well-read on current affairs and have not heard of any weekly reports on polar bears drowning or "fish stocks nearing depletion." Perhaps you would provide with the reference for these news reports since you forgot to include them in the article.
I did think you were extremely bold to include the heat wave deaths in Europe in 2003 and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in your global warming diatribe. First, the heat wave deaths were a direct example of the kinds of failures socialism (or is that progressivism?) brings, and second, it's been proven that Ms. Carson was wrong about the deleterious effects of DDT, sacrificing tens if not hundreds of millions of lives to insect-born diseases.
I had hoped my beloved Ohio State would not become the seething cauldron of non-thinkers so many other large and otherwise respectable institutions of learning have become, but it appears my hopes were in vain. You may consider my membership terminated.
DANA L. PETERS '78 (LM)
The latest alumni magazine disappointed and angered me. The front cover and associated article about global warming was so biased, only showing one side of the facts, and any future donations will not be coming from me until we see the other side if the issue. I have read the magazine for years now and this is the first time that I was truly offended and ashamed of our university. If a controversial subject is to be part of the magazine, there must be equal time for the other side.
ROBERT E. CRIBBS '68, '73 MR (LM)
You have a responsibility to represent all major alumni views in your articles, not just the liberal point of view. A balanced approach is the best way to achieve the organization's stated vision, mission and values. I strongly believe in freedom of speech and the right to express all views. Your approach has resulted in a de facto violation of those principles by failing to express all sides of an issue. I thought a great academic institution like Ohio State and its Alumni Association would be the first to stand up for these principles. For example, many of us abhor the deterioration of family values taking place in this country. Many of us believe there should be a balanced approach to economic growth and the environment that does not require a return to the horse a buggy. Can your author prove that the swing in global temperatures and climates is not mostly a natural part of the cycles that have occurred on this planet for eons?
DON HUBSCHMAN '01 MR (LM)
I sincerely hope that Lonnie Thompson was misquoted when he was cited as saying that China has "not made the heavy investments in fossil fuel-dependent technologies that we [in the U.S.] have, so they have a greater opportunity to in invest in alternative energy." Perhaps his partnership with China in the occupied territory of Tibet has blinded him to the fact that China is the world's number one consumer of coal, number two consumer of oil, and that they are adding a new coal-fired power plant every few days.
If the quote is accurate and representative of the level of academic rigor at the Climate, Water, and Carbon Program, I would recommend that the university instead redeploy the $22 million to sub-Saharan Africa, where it can be used to purchase DDT and save the lives of millions of children who will otherwise die of malaria.
JIM VANCE '71, '71 MS (LM)
Can we have a tiny break from the "global warming is a future disaster" stories? Is there someone who would be willing to bet a substantial portion of their future income on the ability of anyone to predict with the temperature at noon at Broad and High streets, two months from any given date? I do not believe many forecasters or weather scientists would take that bet, but we are all being asked to commit a large portion of future GNP to "fix" the problem of global warming. If the weather cannot be predicted accurately only two months in advance, how are they able to project temperatures 50 years from now?
A good start would be to provide a lucid and comprehensive explanation of the substantially warmer and cooler periods in the earth's past. After all, there is data available to confirm a model on the past but I am unaware of any group who has put forward such a model that correlates well with observed events.
By the way, aren't these the same groups that were warning us about global cooling in the 60s? What happened?
STEVEN C. CHAPMAN '88 (LM)
Since when did the Ohio State Alumni Magazine become a vehicle for left-wing propaganda? After reading "Managing the Meltdown," I promptly went to my toilet and upchucked. The issue of global warming has been around a few years but to my knowledge there is no solid evidence that human beings are the source of the problem. Quite the opposite, most "experts" generally agree that the earth has had periods of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years. Considering Mars is also experiencing the effect of global warming maybe we should consider another cause: you know that big yellow thing in the sky we call the sun?
This article is nothing more than mindless drivel meant to scare the uneducated into pumping more dollars into dead-end research projects and liberal non-profit organizations. The editors of this magazine should be ashamed they allowed it to be published. They should have dropped it in the recycle bin and made the earth a better place to live.
JEFFREY R. LOHMEYER '88 (LM)
Your May/June issue makes me sad to be a Buckeye. The feature on global warming was so one-sided and misguided as to question whether all the billions spent on research at Ohio State isn't a colossal waste of taxpayers' and private donors' money. What is stated as "fact," that man is responsible for the earth's warming, is either an outright lie or a cloaked attempt to push a political agenda.
There are so many distorted statements and non-discussed facts that it leaves the reader to believe that humans should just be removed from earth in order to "save" it. First, Silent Spring did lead to the banning of DDT. The real outcome of the ban was not the saving of the bald eagle, but rather the destruction of millions of lives in third-world countries due to malaria and yellow fever. Second, the feature suggests using fluorescent bulbs. What is not discussed is that these bulbs contain mercury in such quantities that if the bulb is accidentally broken, the mercury levels are extremely harmful to humans. In fact, in most cases, a toxic waste company is needed to clean your home at the cost of several thousand dollars. Third, speaking of An Inconvenient Truth, no attempt is made to point out its absurdities and the agenda of those who wrote, produced, and funded its fiction.
Like most people who purport "to know" that man is responsible for global warming, the feature suffers from three glaring things that turn the global warming myth on its ear. The most common error is that they assume that correlation equal causation. While carbon emissions have increased since 1961, no science exists that proves these emissions are causing global warming. Second, no attempt is made in this or any article on global warming to even suggest a cost-benefit analysis be done. If the costs of drastically changing our lives are greater than the benefits of the change, why should they be undertaken? Do we want to risk our life expectancy, our way of life, our hopes, our dreams, and our lifestyles on dramatic change for something that has not been proven and will not be proven one way or another until long after the proponents are dead?
It is a sad day that my university chose to become beholden to the former socialists masquerading as "environmentalists." I doubt I will see this response printed as it clearly does not mesh with the agenda set forth by the university. Just once, I would like to see a university, my university, be neutral and open-minded instead of reactionary and political.
SUSAN ALLEN
This was a good article, but I am afraid that readers received wrong information in the "Save Your Energy" column. What you said about thermostats refers only to heat pumps. It is important for folks to turn down their thermostats when they are not at home or up in the summer time!
WILLIAM F. MCKEE '56 JD
The possible science fiction you put forth overtaxes the imagination. However, the polar bear on the ice floe is not science fiction, but fact. When I was in the service, one of our sister ships in the North Atlantic was in an ice field between Greenland and Iceland. They saw a polar bear on an ice floe and in a misguided effort to help the bear, got him on the quarterdeck. The bear did not take kindly to these efforts and was rampaging. The only solution was to shoot the bear. The year of this: not 2015, but 1952.
You could have obtained better balance in your article by explaining the onset and offset of the cycle of prior ice ages. Most of the cited scientists today are averse to explaining these prior events as it would weaken many of the current positions.
The "bioengineered protein brick" may not be science fiction in the future if the current rate of population explosion continues. Producing enough to feed all could become a real problem. China may be a leader in this ecology with its limitation methods on population growth.
JANET WAGGONER
While the article contains a lot of wonderful points and suggestions on how everyone can help save the planet, I have to wonder what Ohio State as a big consumer is doing to help. Think of how much energy Ohio State could save, and how it could help the local and state economies by purchasing goods made in Ohio whenever possible. What about recycling options at all Ohio State games?
Cheaper now is not always cheaper in the long run when you factor in the long-term cost to our environment and Ohio's economy. Instead of just spending millions on research to help the planet, how about also seeing how many millions Ohio State can save?
GARY BEELER '63, '64 MS (LM)
"Managing the Meltdown" was an example of yellow journalism, unworthy of publication by a great university. The topic is appropriate, but the coverage was radically unbalanced, exaggerated, and misleading. Examples include:
- Only the most extreme predictions of the consequences of global warming were portrayed (polar bear adrift in the ocean).
- Local weather conditions of various and sundry kinds were used as examples of global warming, a connection that has not been made by the bulk of the scientific community.
- The Citicar was never a commercial success. Only 2,500 Citicars were produced while on its way to being "the sixth-largest automaker in the U.S."
- The nuclear accident at Three Mile Island was a partial core meltdown that caused no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.
- Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is hardly a reliable scientific reference.
- Along with global warming, the article veered off into the typical liberal diatribe on nuclear/industrial accidents, human rights violations and endangered species.
I'm embarrassed that The Ohio State University would publish such an unprofessional article.
Here are even more letters received in response to "Managing the Meltdown" from the May/June 2007 issue. The following letters appear in their original, unedited form:
KEN SCOTT '73 (LM)
I am amazed and pleased to see the OSU Alumni magazine becoming a source for interesting social debate! I generally have a quick flip through the magazine and that's about it, but the "letters" columns in the past two issues have been fascinating! Personally, I found both the articles on the American Family (March-April) and Global Warming (May-June) to be interesting and informative, but certainly not political and/or provocative. Universities are supposed to sew the seeds of enlightenment and forward-thinking, and that's what you are doing.
Jennifer Willett and Jeff Cajka (May-June letters) did a beautiful job of countering the hate-mongers and the deluded "family values" crowd who criticized the American Family article. Regarding the Global Warming (GW) article, I am amazed at the number of negative letters you received (and printed). I didn't think there were that many deniers left in the country, let alone associated with this university! It is especially surprising since there were really only a couple benign paragraphs at the beginning of the article that even discussed GW; most of the article focused on programs being carried out by the University to research and address Global Warming and climate issues.
There are only three reasons to deny that GW is real and/or that humans bear some responsibility for it: (1) political bias, (2) ignorance, or (3) selfishness. Most of the letters seemed to have a political bias. Anyone who uses the words "Democrat," "liberal," "progressive," or even "socialist" in attempting to argue against GW, immediately betrays their bias. These people see the world as either red or blue and science be damned. GW may have been a political issue a decade ago but it no longer is. Politicians of every stripe, even Bush and some of the most fundamental, conservative religious organizations, are now convinced that GW is real, and that it is being caused and/or exacerbated by human actions.
Ignorance takes many forms. One writer mentioned a 10-year-old Wall Street Journal article where a number of supposed scientists denied the CO2-GW link. Could it be that some of these "scientists" were working for the numerous now-discredited "think tanks" that were bankrolled by Exxon/Mobil? Several writers mentioned that temperatures and CO2 levels have been higher in past eras than they are now, and this is true. Near the end of the Mesozoic Era (ca. 100 million years ago), and again in the Eocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Era (ca. 40 million years ago), temperatures may have been 5-10C warmer than current temperatures, and unless you understand and appreciate geologic time scales and geologic cycles this seems to deflate some of the GW urgency. However, it took tens of millions of years for temperatures and CO2 levels to reach those elevated levels, and an equally long time to "return" to current levels. We're now looking at similar temperature and CO2 changes over a period of a few hundred years - less than a blink of an eye in Geologic time. This certainly raises the possibility of some non-natural (human) intervention.
Another writer spoke of the various greenhouse gasses, noting that CO2 has many natural sources and that water vapor is also a major contributor. While this is all very true, in the US alone we are pumping over 35 billion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. One can argue quantitatively about the relative impact of this versus, say, water vapor or naturally-occurring CO2, but it impossible to escape the fact that we are significantly perturbing an essentially closed and delicate ecosystem that has evolved through hundreds of millions of years into its present configuration. To dismiss out of hand the fact that this perturbation could be having an effect on the ecosystem is irresponsible.
But having said all this, none of it really matters! The whole "argument" over GW is pointless. GW is happening - absolutely no one denies this - and it either is or is not being influenced by human activities. If it is, then we need to do everything in our power to reduce the causal factors and try to ameliorate the negative effects. If it is not, we still need to do exactly the same things! Reducing CO2 emissions, reducing smog and pollution, reducing fossil fuel consumption, increasing reliance on alternative energy sources, conserving resources and living more sustainably are all things which must be done for myriad reasons quite apart from GW concerns. So really, what's the argument?
That brings us to the third reason for denial: selfishness. We simply don't want to make the necessary sacrifices. One writer said it so succinctly that I quote: "Do we want to risk our life expectancy, our way of life, our hopes, and our dreams on dramatic change for something that will not be proven one way or another until long after the proponents are dead?" In other words: "I want to continue to live the selfish, indulgent, consumptive lifestyle to which I have become accustomed, and to which I am entitled, and if that happens to have negative impacts on future generations, I don't care because I wont be around anyway." Americans are 3% of the worlds population and we currently consume 25% of the world's resources. We party on while much of the world starves, and we somehow think this is our due because we're "Americans."
Thank you for your article on Global Warming and thank you for printing all the rebuttal letters. Keep up the good work.
JEFFREY CAJKA '70
The letter response to your article on global warming surprised me by its extreme negativity and lack of response by your magazine. Most of the objections cited the fact that only one side of the argument was provided.
There is a war of words being waged in the mass media and on the internet over global warming. In general, oil, coal, tire, auto and other companies that have a stake in this issue have attempted to obscure the fact that global warming is occurring and specifically denigrate any scientific data that supports the notion that human activity contributes to this warming. Despite the President of the United States and the National Academy of Sciences agreeing that there is increased global warming and that some of this warming is due to greenhouse gases, some people still maintain the opposite, either out of ignorance or from a self-serving position. The President of the United States himself said in 2001: "...the National Academy of Sciences indicate[s] that the increase [in CO2] is due in large part to human activity."
The attacks on your article, unless refuted, place your magazine in the position of publishing, at worst, spurious data or, at best, a misleading narrative. In order to fully protect the authors of your articles, I suggest that you provide them the opportunity to respond to these attacks on their credibility.
CHARLES H. CHANDLER '46 MA
It is very Politically Incorrect, these days, to question the reality or magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (hereafter, AGW). But Paul Williams (Sept-Oct. issue, p. 61) has had the good sense-and the courage -- to do that. I congratulate him.
Let me add one other citation to his mention of Singer's Unstoppable Global Warming. That is Meltdown, by Patrick J. Michaels (Washington,D.C.: Cato Institute, 2004). Michaels, himself a climatologist, reveals how politicians, media people and (alas) many scientists, benefit by exalting the threat of AGW. In case after case, example after example, Michaels shows how effects have been exaggerated, data selected, and unwarranted conclusions drawn. The book is somewhat more technical than Singer's-but is all the more convincing for that. Nobody should take a position on AGW without having read that book.
For those who say, "Well, but look at all the power-company executives, automotive engineering directors, and oil-company spokesmen who downplay the threat of man-made global warming; how can they possibly be impartial?" My response is: Fine; but the basic problem with research supporting AGW is that it is largely government-funded. And who benefits from that? The scientists, with assured grants; the media people, with exposure and advancement; and the politicians, with . . . power.
MIKE RETHMAN DDS '74 MS
No surprise that many alums-who-write-letters affiliated with our beloved Ohio State University buy into global warming politics lock, stock and barrel. Not surprising, but unfortunate.
Careful scientists couch their conclusions in the language of statistics and report the probability of that the "investigative hypothesis" is wrong. Indeed, the IPCC's reports a 90% likelihood that global warming (the investigative hypothesis) is actually underway. This means that they admit that there is a 10% chance that it's not. However, their meta-analysis, like many analyses in science, fails to account for what is termed "publication bias."
Publication bias is a tendency among scientists and editors to write-up and publish data that are compelling and discard those data that are not. This is at least partly because compelling studies are key to making reputations that, in turn, are critical to getting funded or having one's journal read. Publication bias is of special interest when it comes to the data-mined, retrospective studies that are the backbone of numerous disciplines, including climate science. Why? High speed computers permit easy testing of one investigative hypotheses after another using existing databases. When something compelling shows up, it is then gets "analyzed" using statistical tests whose mechanisms are based on the key assumption that there is NO bias in how the data were sampled.
So what, you say? Even back in pre-computer days when data-mining was very time-consuming and repeated attempts to "mine for the compelling" was less likely, such papers were rightly termed "handwavers" rather than conclusive demonstrations of the truth. In the computer age, studies based on data-mining are even more likely to be biased than ever before. Sadly, many scientists who ought to know better either don't, or worse yet, may consciously gloss-over the serious limitations associated with conclusions based on their data-mining. (The same problem exists in biomedical science. Indeed, I cite numerous specific examples when I speak to the occasional audience interested in the nuts and bolts of the scientific method. To their credit, some biomedical journals are now requiring the pre-registration of clinical trials as a means to help limit this serious problem. This may help somewhat, but if the investigators don't take the time to write-up and submit non-compelling findings, what will the penalty be? And even if these new efforts to limit publication bias eventually succeed, these are aimed at prospective studies. There is no way to achieve similar pre-registration of retrospective studies.)
How serious a problem are the various permutations of publication bias? My guess is quite serious... especially where there is money, fame and politics in the mix. But, conveniently for me I guess, mine is a hypothesis that can't be proven.
All that said, I'll concede that in light of all the (possibly flawed) supportive papers so far, published atmospheric warming is probably underway, I'd guess the true likelihood is about 60-40. But even if warming is underway, it's far from clear is why it's happening, how nature comprehensively buffers the earth's oceanic/atmospheric system, if there is anything we can do about warming -- and if so, even if we should. Despite the tendency of some to spin, neither Al Gore or I know the truthful answers to these questions.
In this debate and others (stem cells come to mind) there are serious domestic and international politics in the wind. In such discussions, I suggest that it's foolish to simply cede the ethical "high ground" to scientists -- or to politicians who masquerade as such. Scientists as a group don't have a consistently noble ethical history -- even before computers came along. Witness eugenics, cold-fusion and dozens of other historical examples of scientific group-think or even outright scientific fraud.
Perhaps a goal for President Gordon Gee might be that Ohio State ought to lead the nation in requiring its graduates to excel at critical thinking!
RICHARD KELLER '64, '66 MA (LM)
I recently caught a glimpse of a Frank Capra science documentary from around 1960 entitled The Unchained Goddess which spoke of the possibility of global warming and melting ice caps. So it is appropriate when your correspondents on climate change refer to the sixties (Jim Vance, Jul-Aug '07), although I take a different view from many of them. The 60s and 70s were the era when western civilization first came to wide consciousness of the unsustainability of its lifestyle. Climate change is but the latest of the symptoms to hit the headlines.
The practical and ideological notions of progress by exploitation have been around for thousands of years. But an anthropological view of many civilizations which have come and gone reveals most used up the bounty of their corner of the planet and/or the elite squeezed the poor to the point of exhaustion.
What of our civilization? It should not be viewed as coincidental that it has been since the revelationary 60s-70s that the greatest growth of CO2 emissions, most rapid expansion of consumerism, and a widening of the gap between affluent and poor has occurred. The elite of our civilization made a decision at that time that the only thing left for them was a grand climax of the era of exploitation by capitalism. Enron, Haliburton in Iraq, "shock and awe", nuclear weapons are but a few of the latest symptoms of this desperate "end-times" decision.
There are other ways which have a continuing future, but it will require letting go of the ideology of exploitation which we currently live by and which many of your correspondents are apparently clinging to.
NICK KALVIN '59 MD
Sad to see shallow, unresearched PC Global Warming hysteria in OSAM. Most alums and staff are too young to know that NOAA ,and university climatologists, alarmed by drops in Northern Hemisphere ground temp of 1/2 degree, NOAA finding sunshine dropped1.3% between 1964 and l972, a 2 week shorter growing season in England since 1950. PREDICTED THAT: A NEW ICE AGE WAS UNAVOIDABLE, WITHIN A FEW DECADES (SEE NEWSWEEK, April 1975.P82 )
Researchers predict famine, catastrophic, geographic and economic changes in "bread basket " areas, with floods, freezes, extended dry spells. "Climatologists are pessimistic....northern hemisphere snow cover increasesd in the winter of 71-72... April of 74 saw the most devastating outbreak of US tornadoes ever recorded...predict decline English decline in grain by 100,000 tons annually...."
"The more spectacular solutions proposed....melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot....diverting arctic rivers...." (Thank God, they were ignored.)
Factually, Ice ages, tropical climate cycles precede Humanity. Greenland and Iceland grew grains and grapes in Viking times. Some coldest winters on record occurred during dirtiest decades of the industrial revolution. One volcanic eruption can cause cooler climate for months or years. Some fear clean air acts increase ground temperature by diminishing particulate reflectants that shade the earth,( a logical side effect in retrospect).
How does Al Gore and your author account for currently shrinking polar caps on Mars? the fact that Solar output, currently in a hot cycle, has varied since solar studies began?
Read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear," a fiction about eco-terrorists. However, the book includes actual, official records of weather, tides, sea level, temperature that are presented and can be verified, researched. That data shows Global Warming as suspect as NOAA's 1975 Ice Age.
TIM FERREE '88 (LM)
I was deeply saddened by the Global Warming article in the May/June issue. It was disappointing to see that my alumni association had decided to join Time Magazine, et al and push the global warming alarmist line.
However, in July/August you bravely printed the letters of protest. Thank You!
September/October brought out the defenders, of course. Sadly, those of us who are skeptical are all "either politically biased, ignorant or selfish". We are called "deniers"--a slander that equates us to deniers of The Holocaust. Name calling is a sign that your argument is weak. Only the fearful will try to avoid true debate.
One writer noted that Americans are 3% of the world's population yet we consume 25% of the world's resources. A little research shows that we are also 25% of the world's economy. Estimates from the ICCC on the impact of Global Warming have decreased in severity. Despite assertions from Al Gore, there are very significant holes in the science here. EVEN IF one believes that Global Warming is a bad thing, AND that it is all caused by Man's activity, there still needs to be discussion and agreement on what to do. Make no mistake, if we made every change needed to halt global warming, the economic impact would be massive. I personally would welcome palm trees on Euclid Avenue AND a 12 inch rise in sea levels before I watched the world economy shrink by 1/3.
Read up, on both sides of the argument. An easy choice, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. This likely won't be settled until the next "Coming Ice Age" scare. That last one of those was only 25 years ago...
HARVEY M. DAVIS '56 (LM)
The consistent change in warming and cooling is not man-made. It started long before we evolved. Our heat source is the sun which varies in distance between us over a (approx.) 20,000 year cycle. During the last 5,000 year warming cycle man has been able to multiply. The next phase will be cooling with our planet orbiting at a constantly increasing distance from the sun.
