Alarmist claims on climate need context
In response to Jim Arneberg’s letter of July 27, I notice he says, “Only the uninformed, misinformed or fossil fuel sycophants ignore climate change.” Sounds like he’s calling such people a “basket of deplorables.”
It’s obvious the climate is slowly warming, but to what extent is it caused by fossil fuels vs. the natural swings of the climate over thousands of years? He says he “wrote a paper for my master’s degree elucidating the trend in tornadoes in the Southeast versus rising temperatures,” showing tornadoes were becoming more common. Then he notes some research from the National Weather Service about heat deaths. But here’s something he likely missed: according to the Wall Street Journal, “Never mind that Harold Brooks, a senior research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Norman, Oklahoma, has studied changes in tornado patterns over recent decades and concluded that ‘the role of climate change is probably really small.’ ”
People like Mr. Arneberg advocate for the elimination of the use of fossil fuels. Where would our energy come from? Renewables wouldn’t come close to supplying our needs. Nuclear is an option, but restrictive regulations make that a long way off.
All the alarmist claims about the world ending due to climate change have been proven false. If we eliminate the use of fossil fuels for energy without a viable alternative, that really would be the end of the world.
John Gibson
St. Charles