Global warming has been a controversial issue for some time. Recently, Kevin O’Leary, a journalist and political scientist at the Center for the Study of Democracy at UCI, wrote a column that fueled the argument.

Here are a few Letters to the Editor from local residents about the issue.

‘NO ONE DENIES THAT CLIMATE CHANGES’

Kevin O’Leary got the title right (“Warming not a partisan issue – it’s physics,” Jan. 17) in his column, but not much else.

His column is based on assumptions and prescriptions that are being hotly debated while more and more scientists recognize that most climate change is caused by natural processes, especially the influence of the sun, cosmological processes and ocean currents.

Of course natural processes have controlled climate throughout Earth’s history so that is nothing new. What is new is the attribution of significant climate change (i.e., warming) to the trace greenhouse gas CO2. This attribution is due to an early incomplete understanding of atmospheric physics and computer modeling.

Like many global warming alarmists who believe that man’s burning of fossil fuels (really ancient bio-fuel) is the culprit, O’Leary prefers the term “climate change” in order that any change, be it warming or cooling, can be attributed by the alarmists to man and the “evil” fossil fuel industry. O’Leary colorfully refers to climate deniers screaming at Mother Nature. However, climate deniers only exist in O’Leary’s imagination.

No one denies that climate changes (it has changed throughout geologic time) or that the Earth has warmed since the early 19th century. The spirited debate is about whether natural processes or CO2 is the major cause of the climate changes that we observe. Because there is very poor correlation between warming and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and scientists are beginning to understand how small variations in solar irradiance can have a significant effect on climate, now is not the time for promoting expensive prescriptive polices for reducing CO2 that probably is not the major factor that many once believed it to be.

Like many policy mavens who never want to let a crisis go to waste, when there isn’t one the alarmists find it necessary to gin one up by placing the worst possible interpretation on incomplete data and knowledge.

– Roger Burtner, Fullerton

HOW CAN THEY PREDICT IT?

Kevin O’Leary’s column discusses concerns of climate change allegedly caused by man and fossil fuels.

O’Leary cites the National Climate Assessment as indicating that “temperatures are projected to rise another 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the next several decades.”

My primary issue with proponents of O’Leary’s climate change theory is that scientists have a hard time predicting the weather and temperature for next week accurately on a consistent basis. However, I am supposed to believe that they can accurately predict a temperature variance of 2 to 4 degrees over the next 20 to 40 years.

– Michael J. Ryerson, Orange

IT’S NOT CAUSED BY MAN

I am happy to notice that you have labeled the column “Warming is not a partisan issue – it’s physics” as something from the left. As a physicist, it gave me a smile to recognize that the author, Kevin O’Leary, was a political scientist and not a natural scientist. The first paragraph of his column was the litany of politically important items while the remainder of the items were from left wing talking points. I would suggest that he read “Unstoppable Global Warming” by Singer and Avery.

Most physicists believe that we have man-caused global warming. I am not convinced for several reasons. First, the Earth’s orbit changes its eccentricity from 0.02 to 0.05 (i.e. the distance from the sun changes significantly which in turn changes the sun that the Earth receives). Data shows that we are at one of the turning points. Small changes in the solar spectrum intensity may cause large changes in the Earth’s level temperature.

Second, I have never seen the press indicate that carbon dioxide is second to hydrogen dioxide (i.e. water) as the biggest IR emitter. When was the last time we could predict the amount of water in the air with great accuracy for more than a week?

Third, the global warming hysteria is based upon the assumption that the atmosphere is in unstable equilibrium and we are near one of the catastrophic turning points. When the dinosaurs were alive the carbon dioxide ratio was much higher than it is now. What is the evidence that we are near or approaching an unstable point when we have large variable amounts of water in the air?

Finally, I am skeptical of any theory that attracts massive government financial support. This is one of those theories.

– George A. Kuck, Ph.D., Westminster

MORE ON THE premiseOF GLOBAL WARMING

The article, “UCI study challenges data on emissions” (Orange County Register, Jan. 13), is about a study that prescribes “disruptive overhaul” in the world’s energy system to combat global warming.

It is consistent with the ideology that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions and can be stopped. This ideology is not scientifically proven but only a speculation upon which an enormous amount of money has been spent. It is likely that enormous amounts of money will be spent on it in the future without impacting the environment, but it will impact our wallets.

It’s a nicely written article with misguided sources.

– James F. Sexton, Fullerton