Letter: Global warming real, so is our role in creating it

By Jerry Gill

The Daily Advance

14 Comments | Leave a Comment

However the ignorant among us deny it, global warming/climate change is real, as Eugene Robinson wrote in his column published April 21. It’s also real — attested to by international scientific agreement — that human beings have contributed to it. We’ve uncaringly polluted the air with our carbon emissions and the water and soil with our poisons. These are scientific facts.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.


The latest report:


Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

I agree Global Warming is a problem

But it's not caused by greenhouse gases as we have been led to believe. Instead it is being caused by the hot air coming from the politicians and propagandists promoting the idea. The truth is if there is any global warming at all, it is extremely slight and nobody really knows what is causing it. Another sad fact is that if the US were to go completely green it would hardly make a difference since the rest of the world including China and Russia are sucking up and burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow, all the while blaming the US for the problem.

No evidence in Fox Entertainment

The rest of the world begs to differ.

Kyoto, Marrakesh, Doha.

Twinstar, change the channel.

Respectfully Submitted.

Force 12

Kyoto, Marrakesh, Doha

are not the rest of the world and as much propaganda is coming from Asia as anywhere, especially China, who is doing nothing to solve the problem. Global warming has never been conclusively linked to greenhouse gases despite all the propaganda. Global warming and its effects is still a theory and no one has ever been able to explain why the earth periodically experiences ice ages. The possibility of another ice age is right around the corner. Nobody can tell us what causes them. One thing they do know but have kept hushed is that space vehicles cut big holes in the ozone layer at launch time. You can also throw the implication that the industrial revolution has prevented an ice age right on the old Chinese propaganda heap. And they say they have no faith.

Like i said - change the channel...

Read up on the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and subsequent sessions in Marrakesh, and Doha, in particular. THAT was my reference to world cooperation on global warming and understanding of accepted science. I'm very disappointed.

Most of America and the rest of the world disagree with you.

Human activity is what has changed since the last ice age. Humans weren't around in any significant numbers 22,000 years ago - or at all, if you agree with the Hamians. Human activity, particularly since the Industrial Revolution has a pretty clear link to what's happening now. The only disagreement is really how MUCH our activities influence world climate, not whether our activities have any affect at all. Except in Fox Propaganda Entertainment and the RNC.

Even if we disagree on how MUCH human activity influences climate, we should all agree that it's better to clean up the environment. Do you agree with THIS?

Or, should we accept more Bejings and 1960's Los Angeles' for short term profits ahead of long term breathing?

Change isn't instant - improvement over time is the answer since it's a global issue that crosses all boundaries. The question is how MUCH time?

I agree that panic is wrong, but failing to act is worse.

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

Let me know when

China and Russia come on board. And can you explain what causes cyclical ice ages? I didn't think so.

So true

We are becoming a third world country by design.

Ice Age

Did anyone learn about the ice age in school. Sceptics are always accused of being science deniers, well what caused all of the other natural cycles before we were blessed with Al Gores new religion, which by the way, he and his closest followers have made millions playing off of this natural cycle!

Uh, yes, I learned...

about the Ice Ages in school. I also learned that they occurred long, long before the Industrial Revolution.

Let me help you just a bit more - the Industrial Revolution was when man first acquired the capacity to massively alter the environment. This capacity has accelerated in proportion to geometric population growth. Thus producing "Bejing" as pointed out by another writer. Now string all of the world's Bejing's together and let them grow until they touch borders like our own Northeastern Corridor Megalopolis. Now maybe you see the scope of potential if we don't begin to change our ways.

Another writer here thinks that we are becoming a "third world country by design." I argue the opposite. By design we are changing our own ways, and are thus leading the world toward positive change. Change is the opposite of third world behavior.

We do, however, retain third-world tendencies driven by unethical and immoral business practices. This is what we fight against by imposing common sense industry regulations. Hopefully, we will provide the model for real third world countries to follow as they begin to grapple with their own environmental problems in their turn. I would point out that the U.S. is actually lagging behind other "first world" countries in many of our environmental policies. Our failure to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol points to the power of the One-Percent's preference for profits over breathing.

The current republican "conservative" attempts to roll-back "job destroying" regulation isn't conservative at all - it's national suicide by a thousand cuts. How's that oil train fire doing in Lynchburg today? How's that chemical spill in Charlestown doing today? How's that coal ash spill doing in Eden, NC today? How are those earthquakes doing in Pennsylvania today. How is that family doing today that just won the first personal injury fracking pollution case? How are you going to do tomorrow with fracking and oil drilling in North Carolina? Will your well water burn? Will we be wiping ducks instead of hunting them? Will your kids play with tarballs instead of seashells at Nags Head? Now sit down in your beach chair at Kitty Hawk - would you rather have Texas Towers one mile in front of you, or a windfarm 40 miles behind you?

I would just close with this thought - How many fish should you or your pregnant wife consume from pretty much any public water in North Carolina? The fact that I can even ask the question "how many" should terrify you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

So while we

Close down coal fired power generating plants in our countrybwhich places a strain On the remaining power plants countries like India and China are building coal fired plants as fast as they can. Does anyone remember the Olympics in Bejing China and how the smog was so bad they had to shut down some plants during the games. So these countries grow and expand economically while we cut our own throats. BTW where do you think all that coal is going that is piled up at Hampton Roads coal shipping piers in Norfolk and Newport News.

Mountain Man, retiring coal fired plants...

is a natural part of the energy business cycle. Strengthening emissions standards may advance the calendar for the oldest, most polluting plants, but they would close simply because of loss of efficiency over time anyway - cost/benefit. Gas is replacing coal very rapidly for these very reasons and some coal plants will be closed rather than converted - again, cost/benefit.

The development of emissions scrubbing technologies that we can export to China, Russia, and other high-pollution countries is a positive business effect of tightening emissions standards at home. Heck, we put "scrubbers," known as catalytic converters, on every car in America for a very good reason - I clearly remember how it was before those converters and it was not pretty. That didn't kill the car industry did it? I don't think scrubbing power plant emissions will end the energy industry either, or even bother it very much at all.

At the same time, development of zero emissions energy sources is spurred by the rising cost of coal fired plants.

What is the alternative to moving forward in the way that we are now? Apparently you would trade your air for faster business growth here. Weakening and removing anti-pollution laws will quickly return us to our own bad old days - or worse - we could become Bejing ourselves, or 1850s London and Paris, or heck, 1960's Los Angeles, New York, Washington, etc.

So, what are you advocating, exactly?

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

Oh Please

Cite some proof. That would be a great start.

Lutonmoore, cite...

your contradictory evidence. Then we'll put both on opposite sides of a scale.

If 99 out of 100 doctors agree that you have treatable cancer, would you start treatment?

Look, I don't think that deniers are stupid, although there are a few truly ignorant parrots out there. I think that denial is actually fueled by a pretty savvy business outlook.

That outlook says that instantly accepting a 39 inch sea level rise on the NC coast is an instant catastrophe for development and tourism and tax revenue. That outlook says that the negative cost of coastal retreat should be delayed as long as possible to preserve and possibly allow short term growth of coastal profits for as long as possible. Why do you think that New Jersey has been so aggressive in their coastal rebuilding following Hurricane Sandy - profits and state revenue - barely a squeak about sea level rise or global warming. Perhaps a better analogy to our OBX is Galveston Island's recovery since Hurricane Ike in 2008.

If you accept inevitable sea level rise then it makes no sense to spend money to rebuild anything at all in those locations, except unpaved beach parking. If you deny sea level rise and global warming then you can rationalize the status quo without spending a dime. Business as usual. See?

So, in NC, it's clear to me that our republicans have decided to rationalize the status quo to preserve what we have and perhaps foster some growth for as long as possible. They have done this by rejecting a pretty good state funded study for three more years and then pre-ordaining the outcome of the next report by restricting the data that can be considered. I personally hate this because of the dishonesty, but it's smart business.

NC Republicans can play the denial card because they own the entire deck. There is no effective political opposition, and hence no contradictory state government voice. So, our entire state looks pretty dumb, even if we know better. The dangerous side effect of official denial is the delay of planning that could make a difference for our long term future and perhaps even survival.

The reality is that no one is going to order an instant coastal retreat, or turn off fossil fueled energy, or force other countries to commit to the same course. So what is really left is incremental changes over time. I think that both sides of the aisle agree on this point.

Look, coastal zones are really only a small part of the issue. Changing rain patterns, long term drought in food growing regions, more frequent and intensifying inland storms, global season shifts, etc., etc., are the larger issues. Check the latest drought maps for California. We can give up beach tourism, but can we stop eating?

So, what exactly is all the yelling about?


The ocean will claim what it will, when it will. When it does, we won't be taking it back. The coastal development issue will be resolved, over time, by erosion. Just like the arguments of deniers.

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

Oh Please

Cite some proof. That would be a great start.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments