Global Warming Skeptic

I was amazed at the article: "Global Warming Deniers" in the recent Oct-Nov-Dec issue. I think this was just nonsense. There is so much about the global warming issue that the writer of this article obviously is unaware, or just uses one source. Was Al Gore the source? If he didn't have the global warming issue, what would he be doing these days and how would he be making so much money?

I am an intelligent reader and I study the issues. This article was so full of nonsense I feel that I can't trust anything in your paper any longer. Science is science, there is no such thing as a consensus deciding fact.

Mayra, we applaud healthy skepticism, and we're posting some of your extensive skeptics' footnotes online at www.openexchange.org. However, we believe that climate skeptics are missing the big picture: The overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real—and man-made.

OPEN EXCHANGE's news story was offered as commentary on Newsweek's article and not meant to be an exhaustive survey of global warming science. Its writers gave ample evidence of a concerted effort by the oil lobby and other political interests to nitpick reputable climate studies and dilute their impact—politics corrupting science.

You misunderstand the meaning of "scientific consensus." While a consensus does not "decide" fact, it goes a long way toward interpreting those facts. Despite your lengthy roundup of global warming skeptics, over 90% of climatology experts worldwide assert that man's burning of carbon is a major factor in climate change. Even the president's own expert recently declared global warming a "scientific certainty." Wikipedia clearly identifies this as the "consensus position," even while posting minority reports by dozens of dissenters.

And consensus is growing. This past October Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for creating, "an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming." (Underline ours.)

In fact, the scientific consensus on manmade climate change is not new and predates all the current media buzz. In 2000 OPEN EXCHANGE interviewed environmental writer Ernest Callenbach on this very topic. He said, "I don't think you'd find any significant disagreement among scientists about global warming. There are a couple of diehard holdouts ... originally funded by industrial sponsors, so you can't really say there's a debate about global warming. There's a debate about what should be done about it, obviously, because some of the things that ought to be done are expensive."

Should the public wait for 100% consensus? (We'd be waiting forever!) Or do we simply respond after disaster with crisis management? Approximately half the world's population lives in areas likely to be affected by flooding resulting from global warming. This is our collective wake-up call!

Pollution Fog At Shaolin Temple

I want to report that in the Shanghai area the air seems cleaner lately. I believe the Chinese government finally installed some pollution controls on the coal fired electrical plants in the area. But last June I traveled to ZhengZhou, home of the KungFu Temple called Shaolin. It was in a remote area up in the mountains, but the air was heavy with pollution. Too bad, because it should have been a very beautiful place. The pollution was so thick it was like a fog.

I question the United States' current practice of exporting jobs to highly polluting countries. Our environmental controls raise the cost of manufacturing stateside, so the jobs and the factories go overseas. The end result is higher pollution, so where is the wisdom in that?

We question your premise that environmental controls necessarily cause the loss of jobs. Developing alternative energies and sustainable practices could very well spur an economic renaissance. China is the new Texas; everything the Chinese do they do in a BIG way! In addition to being the largest coal producers, they're also the largest manufacturers of solar panels. Should the US pressure China to cut emissions? Definitely! On the other hand, per capita CO2 emissions in China are still only about one fifth what they are in the USA. So it's hard to take the moral high ground, telling Asians to slow their own economies when our domestic lifestyle is not just opulent but extremely wasteful by comparison. Yes, Europe and the USA are ahead of China in protecting individual rights and the health of its citizens. On the other hand, the USA exports massive amounts of its toxic wastes, including radioactive waste, to be buried in African nations, "NIMBY" on a national scale. So, it comes down to this: We have to continue to clean up our own act while negotiating hard to get other countries to clean up theirs. If we're successful our grandkids will look back and thank us for preserving the planet. If not... well, let's not let it come to that!

Community Support

THANK YOU so much for the great layout, color for the title, and inclusion of the Qi Gong photo with the belly photo for the article my client wrote about her healing experience!! I continue to admire your talents and skills in layout and organization of the OPEN EXCHANGE articles and ads. I love the colored bars at the top of the page for listings and the colored titles per listing. And I greatly appreciate the cross referencing to ads and listings!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

You're welcome, Stephanie! We're all very blessed to live in the Bay Area, where the community supports alternative explorations and lifestyles!