Global warming

In Dennis Byrne's "Sick and tired of that global warming whine" (Commentary, July 10), take his most concise paragraph and replace "man-made global warming" with "aggression by a nuclear-armed Iran." Then it reads: "Is destructive aggression by a nuclear-armed Iran possible? Yes. Is it likely? I don't know. Is it certain? No."

On that issue, is Mr. Byrne equally in favor of doing nothing to prevent a possible catastrophic situation?

— Scott Lynch-Giddings, Blue Island

Finding facts

Dennis Byrne's column was surly and ungracious. He compares those who believe there is a relationship between global warming and our recent extreme weather to "stink follow(ing) a garbage truck." Those words alone are unfortunate, but more so in that those he mocks include virtually every climatologist in the world.

Ninety-seven percent of working climatologists now agree with climate change theory, and the National Science Academy calls it "as certain as the theory of evolution, the theory of the age of the Earth and the theory of the big bang." But Byrne marginalizes them as being politically motivated. A writer with a national audience should not "speak from the hip." He should take the trouble to find the facts before powering up his computer.

— Jay Mulberry, Chicago

Alarmism

I want to thank Dennis Byrne for providing teachers with some excellent examples of shoddy logic and loaded language to share with their students. Rather than actually confronting the overwhelming evidence of global warming, Byrne chooses instead to call names ("alarmists" and "propagandists") and make vague claims about "the deconstruction of science."

If obvious evidence such as the increasing number of heat-related records, melting glaciers, recent droughts, and Midwest crop losses isn't enough evidence of man-made global warming, consider theses facts: CO2 levels have increased 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution and are the highest they have been in 650,000 years; the thickness of the arctic ice has diminished by almost half over the last 40 years; and the Maldives will be submerged by the end of this century. I suggest it's time to listen to the "alarmists" before it's too late.

— Peter F. McGivern, Wheaton

Ax-grinding

I must have misread the Tribune's instructions for submitting an opinion piece. I was sure they cautioned against "ax-grinding, spleen-venting tirades," and required the writer to "have some qualifications to write in the field," but I must have been wrong. How else can one explain the publication of an ill-informed, vitriolic screed by blogger Dennis Byrne?

Despite having no scientific credentials, he insults and denigrates the lifelong work of thousands of devoted scientists. The evidence supporting this view is simply mountainous. Far from being disproven, most of the decades-old climate model predictions are now showing up right on time.

So why does the Tribune give a prominent platform to a freelance blogger with no technical background, who substitutes "scare quotes" and snark for legitimate journalism, and, most important, grossly misleads the public over one of the most daunting challenges of our time? Beats me.

— Rick Knight, Chicagoland Citizens Climate Lobby, Chicago

I found Dennis Byrne's column embarrassing and reckless. We can agree that any given day's weather shouldn't be used to politicize climate change. But Byrne is himself guilty of politicizing climate change by ignoring the facts and the reality that there is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming and the change is human-made. According to Byrne, we should believe him instead of the experts, you know, those pesky scientists. That's like saying one should obtain medical advice from your butcher.

— John Karnuth, Chicago

Shorter Byrne

In the interest of saving the Tribune some space next time Dennis Byrne runs a column on global warming, allow me to offer a summary of what he will say.

"Anyone who advocates the science of global warming is a wild-eyed alarmist! As a trained newspaper columnist, my review of the scientific literature proves that all global warming science is corrupt and untrustworthy. (Pay no attention to the 95 percent of those actually trained in the biological sciences who agree that global warming is under way and caused in large part by man.) Did I mention that the alarmists are shameful, deceitful individuals? We need not do anything until a 100-year study can prove this theory one way or another. Did I mention that the alarmists are shameful and disgusting?"

— Alan Rooks, Glenview