In Gen. Tommy Franks book "An American Soldier," he quotes his dad as saying: "Remember this, son, You don't necessarily need to know anything to have an opinion." I think of this quote every time I read one of Roger Ray's "Opinions" in the News-Leader. (His latest 4/30/08 is about global climate change.)

No, Mr. Ray, the time for disputes over the causes of global climate changes has not ended. I will guarantee anyone who wants to take time to investigate that the more you read the more questions you will have.

Maybe we could all start by agreeing on one point: This Earth has been warming up or cooling off through its entire history. The idea that we can stop these cycles is ludicrous.

The global warming we have recently experienced is well within the norms we have experienced in recorded history. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel on TV, calls the global warming hype "the biggest scam in history." Type John Coleman into your search engine and read a rational skeptic's argument. There is an excellent speech posted on Michael Crichton's Web site concerning global warming. I highly recommend that all who can go to his Web site and read this because he has reviewed the UN report concerning global warming.

Earlier this year, Jon Nance (Prof. emeritus as MSU) in his series about our universe referenced a Dec. 6, 2007, issue of the journal Nature. In this issue a group of scientists from Toronto argue a natural cycle in the increase and decrease of carbon dioxide level. There are acts of nature that produce increased amounts of carbon dioxide.

I understand that the many trees brought down by hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi are too big a mess to clean up and many are just sitting there rotting and putting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. Since plant life breathes in carbon dioxide, there seems to be some stimulation in increase of these levels. We, you and I, breathe carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Maybe those who are overly concerned about carbon dioxide levels might refuse to breathe out (this would help).

What worries me is that our government will jump onto the problem and dictate solutions which will have devastating consequences. Look at the unintended consequences that have kicked in concerning the mandated production of ethanol.

Our government has been making terrible choices. The way to solve our shortage of oil in this country is to drill for oil where we can. We have the oil and we need to go get it and use it. For those who think we can live without oil let me say this: If you could wave a wand and invent a new car with a new non-polluting fuel today, you wouldn't solve the problem of the millions who have a car or truck that runs on gasoline or diesel. (Nor the problem of the train that runs on oil or the ship that is powered by oil or the airplane that uses petro.)

Any solution to establishing an economy that is not based on oil is years away. To hear a senator like Charles Schumer deride the oil companies for the profits they make when our government is the biggest recipient of money when they get a percent of all profits (and they don't have to do anything to get it).

And the decisions the government has made in preventing oil exploration are responsible for the high prices of today. And Schumer can say that oil might be 10 years away if we drilled in Anwar but it was President Clinton who vetoed a bill to allow drilling in Anwar (in other words, the oil could be in the pipeline today).

In Roger Ray's world the whole problem is George Bush and his relationship with ExxonMobil. We know a lot about our world but I have an instinct that we know only a small fraction of what we need to know to make any sensible decisions concerning global warming. And, I might add that from what I have read, this planet has only had humans on it for a very short period of its history.

Eventually this planet will become uninhabitable (no matter what we do) -- just be thankful that it will be many generations in the future.  Source

Average user rating