Letters to the Editor, April 3

Apr. 02, 2014 @ 01:37 PM

Research letters’ accuracy

First, I want to thank J. R. Smith Jr. for taking 15 seconds to find the documentation of scientific consensus regarding climate change that the meteorologist Robert Medred had "never seen".  Second, I have a request for The Herald-Sun editors.  When you publish a letter which makes assertions that can readily be checked for accuracy, why not do the research and publish the results as an addendum to the letter?  It would be a service to your readers who rely on the newspaper for reliable information.

Donald Burdick
Durham

Facts over propaganda

For facts over propaganda on “man-made global warming,” refer to the Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) -- not the government-controlled study of carefully selected academics and anti-American Third World countries (via IPCC). 

Meteorologists/atmospheric physicists make up at least three-fourths of the researchers investigating the long-term global weather system, a.k.a., global climate.  Meteorologists have the unique set of skills to produce a predictive atmospheric mechanism combining math, physics, real-world data and computer models.  Other scientists such as physicists, chemists, geologists, geographers, biologists, et al. provide useful input, but don’t have expertise on atmospheric dynamics. 

A study years ago by a handful of believers (with no skeptics involved) “reviewing” published literature concluded 97 percent of “scientists” believe mankind is the main cause of the Earth’s minor temperature rise.  This was not a scientific study by any measure -- even if it was “approved” by an agenda-driven, science-related organization.  This poll was similar to a political “push poll.”  For example, if respondents didn’t know the cause of supposed global warming, or said mankind could have any degree of impact, then all these respondents were classified as believers of mankind being the main cause.  Not only is this dishonest, but such a conclusion isn’t possible given at least 48 percent  of meteorologists believe mankind has little to no influence on our weather/climate. 

If anyone is curious why we haven’t heard about this huge lack of “consensus” to the American Meteorological Society’s recent questionnaire on global warming, follow the grant money.

Robert Medred

Hillsborough

Moral call to conscience

On Monday, the newest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the most urgent call to action on climate change yet. We should heed its warning and urge senators Kay Hagan and Richard Burr, Gov. Pat McCrory and other legislators to quickly put partisanship aside and act on climate change, from a moral perspective.

In 2011, 54 heat records were broken in North Carolina. Warming from climate change will cause Ashville and Raleigh to see over twice as many “bad air days” as normal, threatening those with asthma. Along our coast, sea levels are rising three times faster than the world average, and 56 percent of our counties will face higher risks for water shortages by 2050. These are just a few of the many impacts North Carolina can expect.

A study by Stanford University professor Jon Krosnick found 77 percent of North Carolinians believe global warming has been happening.

We have a moral obligation to be good stewards of our Earth, protecting the world for our children and grandchildren. We have an ethical responsibility towards the “least of these,” which will experience the worst effects of climate change despite emitting the least amount of carbon pollution.

At the Friends Committee on National Legislation, we ask people to meet with their representatives on our non-partisan, moral responsibility to address climate disruption. We must strive to heal both our planet and the divisiveness of our political culture by collectively issuing the moral call to conscience on climate disruption.

Emily Wirzba

Hillsborough