Man is not solely to blame for planetís warming trend
The opinion piece by Eric Thuma in last week's issue regarding global warming exemplifies the scientific thought of the "hate/blame Bush crows."
There is serious scientific disagreement as to what impact, if any, man has upon the temperature of the earth. Scientific consensus is not science. Science is the ability to develop a hypothesis from gathered data and then test it and prove the hypothesis repeatedly. The opinions of some scientists, climatologists and politicians does not equate to science.
One can acknowledge that the earth is warming and, for the sake of argument, there is anecdotal evidence to support the claim. However, this does not meant that man is to blame.
It is curious to me that villages have been found in Greenland where the glacier has receded and that it is estimated the villages are several thousand years old. One can conclude from this that at one time the earth was so warm that man resided in those locations. Subsequently the earth cooled and the areas eventually were covered with ice. Now the earth warmed again and these villages are exposed. What carbon emissions existed when the villages thrived? Did man, thousands of years ago, so abuse the environment that the emissions of carbon caused a higher earth's temperature? If so, what caused it to subsequently cool?
How does mankind free itself from carbon emissions when all mammals expel carbon dioxide every day? Why does your writer Eric Thuma seem so willing to blame Bush but remains curiously silent about China which is building a new coal fired electric generating plant every day?
I think it is time to take a deep breath of our superheated and carbon infused air and relax. I distinctly recall the newspaper stories 30 years ago bemoaning the coming ice age, which was touted by a scientific consensus, and that shortly Michigan would be covered with ice.
My guess is that the earth cools and warms over time and that solar sun spots have a lot more to do with it than does the supposed ignorance of the Bush administration. That guess is as accurate as that of politicians or writer Thuma.
If, instead, your columnist and the blame Bush crowd were to argue that we need to clean the air and water because pollution is bad for humans, they would find little disagreement. But to run about like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling without scientific proof, not scientific consensus, is a waste of time and resources.