TO THE EDITOR: Your Jan. 15 editorial on global warming and carbon dioxide was a bit rough around the scientific edges.
While working for a natural-gas utility in the early 1970s, I did a climate study using historical temperature records (no cow belches, auto emissions, etc.) It was so cold in the 1960s, the company was concerned with its gas supplies.
My study indicated warming from the mid ‘70s to early into this century. Around 1976, we started warming. A northern
European university did a study at the same time using ice-core samples from Greenland and concluded a short warming trend (20 to 30 years) inside a much larger cooling trend. Hopefully these studies are incorrect, and warming will continue.
During warm periods, humankind has prospered with increased crop yields and better living conditions.
The carbon-dioxide scare is about control and money; always follow the money. It was global cooling in the ‘60s; Mother Nature didn’t cooperate. Mother Nature hasn’t read Al Gore’s book.
We can lower carbon-dioxide emissions, and if we wish to see utility bills go up tenfold that’s the way to go. So the beautiful people should buy carbon credits (plus a fee, of course, for the Al Gores’) use the right light bulbs, drive electric cars, etc. Me ... I’ll talk to the sun and see if we can prolong this warming trend.
Your editorial inferred (probably unintentional) that soot was carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas necessary for life on Earth. Also I don’t believe the prototype autos referred to in the editorial burn nitrogen. It would be hydrogen, which is flammable and has a byproduct of water vapor, another heat-trapping gas (we just can’t win!).