Response to Mr. Kundu's Editorial

Mr. Kundu's recent article chastising me and other skeptics of the man-made global warming theory couldn't have been more timely. Just this past week a petition was released signed by 31,000 scientists across the U.S. rejecting said theory. Where's the consensus now?

Mr. Kundu states that the preponderance of data in certain journals shows a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. That may be true. Those of us with a technical background know that data can be manipulated to show a desired conclusion whether there is real correlation or not. Other equally valid sources as the journals he listed have shown that carbon dioxide level changes lag temperature change. Or in other words, warming causes the rise in carbon dioxide, not the other way around.

Approximately 95 percent of the greenhouse effect on the earth is caused by water vapor. The remaining 5 percent is created by the "greenhouse gases" of which carbon dioxide is the major contributor. Any attempt to change man-made carbon dioxide, which consequently makes up less than 3 percent of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is a futile effort to change the natural process.

Mr. Kundu's reply smacks of hypocrisy. I referenced a recent article that listed scientific predictions of environmental disaster that didn't come true. Mr. Kundu rejected the article out of hand because it was authored by philosophy majors. Does this make the false predictions any more true? It's interesting to note that Mr. Kundu is listed as a communications/government affairs specialist on his project's website. Is this background any more scientific than a philosophy major? He also tries to denigrate Dr. Lindzen's viewpoint by stating that he receives some funding from oil companies, yet he himself runs an organization that depends on environmental alarmism for its funding.

The very low point of the editorial came when he accused skeptics of 'economic racism.' He used a series of natural disasters with no proven link to man-made carbon dioxide to accuse us of being unconcerned because they didn't impact us. This implies that skeptics don't really believe their positions but are holding them for some evil ulterior motive. How absurd and insulting. This is especially troubling when it is the misguided environmentalist movement to biofuels that is causing the recent food shortages in Africa and Asia. Additionally, environmentalists don't even dare address what eliminating the most cost efficient energy resources, coal and oil, from developing nations will do to their economies and their peoples' standard of living, however I won't stoop to the level of calling them racists for their positions.

As I stated in a previous letter I don't mind people having foolish beliefs as long as they don't impact the rest of us. The major impact at home is in our schools. Mr. Kundu himself states that it is most important to indoctrinate the young on global warming. 'Progressive' leaders have used this approach throughout history to grow their power as children are the least likely to think critically. Progress by "progressives" is often in the wrong direction. Find out what social policies are being pushed on your children in school and if it concerns you address your school board.

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the Oct 22
Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Browse the archives.