Additional Text on Global Warming - 4/26/08 
  SANDBOX stuff is NOT edited. This is copy/paste only.  -Maren
4 Bombers sent stuff on Global Warming
Ray Wells ('54), Ed Wood ('62)
Roy Ballard ('63), John Allen ('66)
>>From: Ray Wells ('54)

Going back to point # 10. in my previous global warming (GW)
email. We need to understand the difference between polluting
gases, and greenhouse gases. The source of these gases is also
relevant -- some are man-made and some occur naturally in
nature. Once this is understood, we need to determine what man
can control and what is clearly beyond man's ability to control.
The media, for the most part, has failed to make these
distinctions clear, and politicians have taken advantage of the
resulting confusion.

I fully concur that we have dangerously polluted our water, our
air, and our soil, and that this has to stop, and we need to
clean up the damage we have done. I have no argument with those
individuals who want to limit and possibly eliminate this
pollution. However, the assumption that all this pollution is
somehow causing a global warming is false; indeed the allegation
that the planet has undergone a global warming is also false.

I applaud the development of green technology that is less
polluting than the burning of fossil fuels, but not because this
technology produces less heat. It's a fact that man-made heat
only contributes 2% towards heating the planet. The other 98%
comes from nature -- and I'll support this fact in future
emails. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is so ridiculous even if
there were such a thing as global warming.

The idea that greenhouse gasses are causing a global warming is
false. The model for this assumption comes from what happens in
a greenhouse when the gasses from the plants collect against the
ceiling of the greenhouse and act as an insulator to prevent
heat from escaping from the greenhouse -- this phenomenon is
true enough. But the planet has no such glass ceiling to trap
its greenhouse gasses and here the analogy falls apart.

I assume that you are all familiar with the philosophy, "The end
justifies the means." If we want to get people to stop polluting
(the end result) and we scare the hell out of them by telling
them that their pollution is warming up the planet, and as a
result the ice caps will melt, the seas will rise, and we will
suffer mass catastrophes (the means) then maybe people will stop
polluting. Unfortunately, this philosophy has generated some
unintended catastrophic results Here are a few:

1. A worldwide food shortage due to diverting corn to be used
in the production of ethanol.

2. Refusal to grant permits to build badly needed new power
plants that use new technology to cleanly burn coal (Oh my god,
they will produce heat!) This is particularly painful to third
world countries that need the power to improve their standard of

3. Rapidly rising gas prices that are collapsing our economy and
lowering our standard of living. Here is my chance to explode
another myth. Big Oil actually likes the idea of being able to
justify limiting their production based on GW. Look at what has
happened: Big Oil is reaping massive profits without having to
invest in exploration, drilling, and the building of new

Finally, here is a web-site by a respected, credentialed
climatologist that supports some of what I have been saying:


-Ray Wells ('54)
>>From: Ed Wood ('62)

Re: Facts and political logic

Heartening indeed, to read comments from global warming skeptics
like Robert Avant, Ray Wells, Frank Whiteside and others. They
encourage us all to study the real facts that are available, as
well as the logic that extends these known facts into
projections, or, in the case of Al Gore, pure fantasy. Two
references that I recommend to those with an open-minded
curiosity are, Shattered Consensus by Patrick J Michaels and
Unstoppable Global Warming by Fred Singer. The former is a
selected set of essays by scientists who contributed to the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports that were so
badly misused by politicians and the more simplistic of the
environmental advocates. In it, we learn that the 2001 IPCC
report was a balanced study of climate change, and since it was
balanced it was clear that consensus did not exist among the
contributing scientists. The summary of the report, however, was
far less balanced. It contained an emphasis on the greenhouse
gas model of warming that was not warranted by the preponderance
of evidence in the real scientific documents in the report
proper. Then there was the summary of the summary, which was
written for policy makers. There was no intent for that document
to be balanced. It was intended to galvanize action, and it was
wildly successful in doing so. But that doesn’t make it
scientifically based. It makes it manipulative. 

Singer’s book digs further into the deceptive practices of the
editors of the IPCC 2001 study in particular. A particularly
telling comparison was drawn between figures shown in the IPCC
reports of 1995 and 2001. Both show the last 1,000 years of
earth temperature based upon data available at the time. The
differences are startling. The 2001 study, the basis of much of
the current furor over global warming, shows the now famous Mann
“Hockey Stick” graph with an alarming increase in global
temperatures during the modern warming period. In doing so, the
Mann graph denies the existence of the well documented Little
Ice Age from 1500 to 1700 and the Medieval Warm Period from 1100
to 1300. The bald deception has been swallowed as “fact” by
untold millions of gullible people who now clamor for us to stop
or reverse CO2 production because it causes global warming.

The data do indeed say that global temperatures and CO2 are
related. But the cause and effect are the reverse of what most
people have come to believe. CO2 has been shown to be a lagging,
not a leading indicator of global warming. The supposition to
explain these data is that most global warming is caused by the
sun and its varying effects caused by sun spot cycles, traverses
through arms of the Milky Way, etc. When the earth warms, the
oceans warm as well. Vast amounts of CO2 are entrained in the
oceans, and as we learned in high school science classes, when
liquid warms, gases are less soluble – the CO2 is released into
the atmosphere by the oceans. Study of past cycles shows that
cooling begins when global CO2 levels are at their highest. So
much for the idea that CO2 causes global warming. These studies,
by the way are in complete agreement with what we’ve seen
recently where CO2 levels continue to rise, yet the earth has
undergone a generalized cooling in the last decade.

Nevertheless, I am one that supports the use of alternative
fuels, mass transit, and anything else we as a country can do to
avoid shipping trillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia and other
middle eastern countries who use this money to foment hatred,
intolerance and violence that is reshaping this world. Imagine
what would happen to the cause of Islamist terrorism if we were
able to suddenly stop 100% of our imports from that part of the

-Ed Wood ('62)
>>From: Roy Ballard ('63)

Maren, This is for the Cat box, I guess. I read the entry's of
Ray and Frank the other day about Global Warming and I must say
that the two of them cover the subject very well. Alas there is
no point for me to get involved as I'm not that well informed on
the subject, except to say that I believe that anyone who does
not listen to the whole story that would involve GORE is well
misinformed. This is a man who is for himself and no one else.
But, I would say that all this political garbage is enough to
make one sick, Is it or isn't it a crime to see all the money
being wasted on this political mess that we now enjoy. At last
count the two major dems were over 400 million and the repub was
at about 90 mill. Now you put that with the GORE mess, OH what a
waste of money that could be spent on better things for the
people of this great nation, how about limiting the time and
amount of money that can be spent for a person looking to get or
is already in politics and wants to get elected..... But the bad
thing is that the elected don't listen to the people of this
country anymore. Nuf said and I got off the subject way too
much, but one may vent on occation

-Roy Ballard ('63)
>>From: John Allen ('66)

During the last week, former Vice-President AlGore and current
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, have presented further,
clear and convincing evidence that the Democrat Party is the
Party of one Niccolo Machiavelli who first asserted that "The
end justifies the means." 

Last Friday (18 April), ABC's "20/20" revealed that AlGore's
Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," contains the
very same computer-generated footage, originally created for the
2004 fictional movie, "The Day After Tomorrow," starring Dennis
Quaid. It comes from one of the most dramatic shots in the
documentary where one is flown along a collapsing 700 foot high
ice shelf in Antarctica, but when Hollywood filmed that scene
for THEIR movie, the ice shelf was, in fact, a big piece of
styrofoam. Since the ABC revelation, those few news agencies
that have bothered to seek comment/clarification from Nobel-
laureate Gore, have found him to be seriously incommunicado. 

In her Earth Day 2008 address (Tues), Speaker Pelosi offered the
following quote that she described as having come from the Old
Testament: "To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act
of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who
made us." Now it is revealed by biblical scholars that not only
does that quote NOT come from the Bible, nothing even remotely
resembling it is contained in either the Old or New Testament.
Ms. Pelosi simply made it up out of whole cloth, as needed for
the occasion of Earth Day and the whole Liberal pipe dream of
"Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change."

The lesson contained herein is that Democrat leaders simply care
more about the problems of the nation and the world and if, on
occasion, they lie a little bit (or a lot) to further themselves
and/or their agendas, it should not be held against them because
after all, they mean well, and the depth of their caring is
sufficient justification for their (at best) tangential
relationships with the truth.

-John Allen ('66)