Another global warming skeptic weighs in

[Theophylact]

This letter was published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on April 16:

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two. This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they? Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.

CONNIE M. MESKIMEN / Hot Springs

(I should point out that, despite a lot of acerbic comment on the Web, the letter actually would seem to be satiric.)

[Gomer]

Connie????? I always thought Epidemic would have a manlier name in real life. I just can't picture a guy named Connie standing in his backyard shooting a mini-van.

=Þ

[Gomer]

And Theo... I dare you to call Connie and find out if he/she were serious. Sad state of affairs that there is a very distinct possibility the letter was serious.

My hat's off if it wasn't =)

George sums it up nicely.

Part of the problem is that there is no downside for non-scientists making incorrect statements (whether wittingly or unwittingly) about science. The people making the statements are not held accountable in the least.

If a lawyer were to make an idiotic statement about most other things (besides science) in an editorial, they wold probably be taken to task — and perhaps even lose credibility.

This fact tends to make people careful when it comes to publicly commenting about most things with a right and wrong answer (other than science) — knowing that their statements may be scrutinized and that they may be taken to task for making them.

On the other hand, when lawyers and other non-scientists make statements about science that are just as idiotic (and just as false), they are essentially given a pass.

If the idiocy of her statement is pointed out by someone else (in a subsequent letter, for example), most people (who know no science) will either conclude that it is a “she said/he said” situation with no right answer or that it “makes no difference if a lawyer is wrong about science”.

[M_Six]

And either she or the newspaper misspelled warming.

The truly terrifying thought here is that this woman may be serious and she votes!

[Mojo Risin']

And either she or the newspaper misspelled warming.

The truly terrifying thought here is that this woman may be serious and she votes!

No, the terrifying thought is the countless amount of the poorly educated in our major inner cities who vote.

[M_Six]

No, the terrifying thought is the countless amount of the poorly educated in our major inner cities who vote.

If this woman did indeed write this, you can't blame her education. She's a lawyer and therefore spent at least 7 years in higher education. My Dad, on the other hand, never graduated high school. Yet he had a successful career and has very logical political beliefs. Education (or lack thereof) means nothing when it comes to voting. Common sense and the ability to think critically are most important. College can help you think critically, but common sense can't be bought at any price.

[Theophylact]

Not always easy to tell satire from stupidity. I picked up this letter from a post on Making Light. One of the commenters had this to add:

My sister-in-law came back from a holiday in Norway, and told her co-workers at the bank about the midnight sun. "The what?" North of the Arctic Circle in summer, the sun doesn't set, it just dips down towards the horizon at midnight, and then starts back up.

Actual reaction: "If it's not going to set, why does it bother dipping down?"

I have it on good authority that stunned silence is the only possible response.

[Epidemic]

gomer you are quite the little dick ain't cha

This twit may be off base but my analysis is at least based on fact. Fact BTW that you are unable to contest as well.

The reason the graphs I use in my argument may be wrong, there may be other causes but they none the less do not seem to indicate CO2 as the primary cause of global warming... So don't get pissy with me Gomer. I just displayed my opinion of what co2 trailing warming and trailing cooling indicates.

This frustrates you because you have no answer for it. I am sorry to rain on your parade. Perhaps you will someday come up with a logical reason that co2 trailed warming and cooling but at this moment No one has successfully done so.

[M_Six]

There may be evidence for this being a work of satire by the author.

[GiPilot12]

so is she seriously stupid or is she being funny?

Ohhh she may have been trying to be funny!!

[Theophylact]

Look, Epidemic, CO2 concentration should lag behind temperature change in a period of warming or cooling brought on by cyclic changes in orbital ellipticity or axial tilt. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold, but the oceans have an enormous thermal mass, and it takes a long time for them to warm up and release their CO2 (or cool down and soak it up). The atmosphere has a far shorter response time because there's so much less of it.

One of the biggest challenges we have now is that the temperature increase caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will trigger a delayed further release from the oceans, which will in turn cause a still greater temperature rise -- a positive feedback situation. Even worse, there's a huge amount of methane tied up in gas hydrates at the bottom of the oceans. Those hydrates decompose not much above the freezing point of water, and methane is (as I believe you have pointed out) a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

[no1_vern]

O, Wait, she WAS SERIOUS???!

should have read the responses first. I sincerely hope its comedy.

[Epidemic]

Look, Epidemic, CO2 concentration should lag behind temperature change in a period of warming or cooling brought on by cyclic changes in orbital ellipticity or axial tilt. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold, but the oceans have an enormous thermal mass, and it takes a long time for them to warm up and release their CO2 (or cool down and soak it up). The atmosphere has a far shorter response time because there's so much less of it.

One of the biggest challenges we have now is that the temperature increase caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will trigger a delayed further release from the oceans, which will in turn cause a still greater temperature rise -- a positive feedback situation. Even worse, there's a huge amount of methane tied up in gas hydrates at the bottom of the oceans. Those hydrates decompose not much above the freezing point of water, and methane is (as I believe you have pointed out) a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

Interesting theory, but the co2 levels were so high at the end the warming period the ocean should not have lowered levels required to reabsorb c02, at those temperatures your thesis says that co2 should still be bubbling up like a glass of soda.

unless the orbital change was 5000 years long and tremendously lowered temperatures. but then we are saying that the orbital change is responsible for the majority of the temperature change and co2 is limited impact.

[Toadman]

*cough*
Evil bad sun!!

[Shipuuden]

It was snowing here last week and as long as I have lived here it has never snowed in April.

[BBA]

Glenn Beck

That is hilarious.