Reactions

WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR ACS?

Watch C&EN's letters department in the coming weeks for more information on how you can help shape the society's Vision.

Convince us

In response to your editorial "Declaring Independence," let me say up front that I'm not one of the "oil company global warming skeptics" or one of their "paid supporters" (C&EN, July 4, page 3). I am a skeptic, however. I guess it was all those science classes over the years that instructed me to question theories, especially in cases where the proposed theory doesn't offer satisfactory explanations of observed events. And there are questions regarding global warming, no matter how often its defenders simply dismiss their questioners with accusations of impure motives (such as greed) and say that they should stop asking questions because, as everyone knows, the truth has been revealed.

There is a limit to the resources we have to spend on solving our many problems. Before we start committing vast amounts of money to a course of action, we must at least have a reasonably clear understanding of what factors are causing climate change, and to what degree. I, for one, am not convinced we're there yet.

I'm much less frightened of the possible effects of global warming than I am of the direction being taken in what should be a rational debate on the science of an issue and on the best public policy response. Global warming has come to have many aspects of a religion. If there's anything we need independence from, it's the "don't question, don't discuss" attitude one often sees in environmental movements. It is most unfortunate to see it expressed in C&EN.

Laura Sharp
Stuttgart, Germany

As one global warming skeptic, I was surprised to discover while reading your editorial that I "yammer endlessly about the uncertainty of computer models" in debating the potential for rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to affect the global climate. While I do admit that I have my suspicions about the ability of computer models to accurately predict the impact of increased levels of carbon dioxide on the global climate, especially in light of the difficulty the National Weather Service has in predicting changes in the climate between today and next week, I typically find myself arguing that we don't yet have enough data to arrive at the conclusion to which you would like to direct us.

Maybe increased levels of carbon dioxide will significantly change our climate. Maybe they already have. Or maybe not. The link between increased carbon dioxide levels and global warming is a theory--no more, no less. Some studies support it, while others do not. It is not so well-established that one can draw a line between the enlightened believers in the theory and those poor fools who yammer endlessly against it because they have yet to be convinced.

Brian Brazeau
Minneapolis

I am ready to be persuaded that human-induced climate change is occurring (and that it would be a bad thing and worthy of redesigning the global economy to fix it). Honestly, I really am. However, reading an editorial that claims that all necessary scientific evidence was accumulated by two experiments, one performed during the past 50 years and another more than 100 years ago, makes me suspicious of global warming proponents. Really, it's that simple? I was under the impression that the atmosphere was a complicated system.

Cloud cover; water vapor; absorption of carbon dioxide by ocean water (and subsequent incorporation into shellfish); and other, possibly as-yet-unknown factors could, and I know this is heresy (or at least more "endless yammering"), mitigate or even alleviate the temperature increase that would have been caused by carbon dioxide alone.

That being said, carbon dioxide may in fact be causing the atmosphere to change. One way to convince me is to present a reasonable argument that addresses my concerns but refutes them nonetheless. I find that quantified results, with low error, provide me with an increased level of certainty. You and I apparently differ in that regard. Telling me that it's simple to understand and that I must be like the big rich oil companies who pay off their supporters and resemble cigarette companies? Give me a break.

Kurt Winkelmann
Melbourne, Fla.

Train trouble

I agree completely with your editorial "Get Serious About Energy" (C&EN, Aug. 1, page 5). The history of management of this country is to run in crisis mode instead of logical-planning mode. We have a very high per capita energy use. We will crash (and will not have enough fuel to burn) in a generation or two. This is mostly avoidable.

If you decide to take a train from Washington, D.C., to the capital of Virginia, beware. We have a Third World (or maybe a fourth world) train system. First, very few trains run between the two cities. Second, the last time I took a train from Alexandria, Va., to Richmond, the train was delayed by three hours, making the trip last five hours. Perhaps one could coin a phrase paralleling the joke that Great Britain and the U.S. are separated by a common language. Washington, D.C., and Richmond are separated by 90 miles, but a five-hour train ride. This is not funny.

Kenneth J. Wynne
Richmond, Va.