Message Board

I had a discussion over e-mail with Mr. Benenson about that sentence. I didn't get into the specifics too much, because I'm sure he is too busy to be lectured by the likes of me. I thought I'd post a portion of our discussion here for some feedback: *** In the July issue, Tom Benenson wrote about the real causes of fuel exhaustion. I wonder if a politically-funded organization concluded that fuel exhaustion often correlated to bent airplanes, that bent airplanes must be cause of fuel exhaustion, would Mr. Benenson then conclude the same or would he use common sense, reasoning, and sound judgment? I'll stick to sound scientific principles rather than consensus. As the more reasonable climatologists state, correlation is not causation, Mr. Benenson. Although we obviously disagree on why the climate is changing, we should at least agree to respect each other's opinions. -Ryan McGowan *** Mr. McGowan, I've found it fascinating that almost everyone who has written has cited an article that was printed in the Daily Mail in the UK....and none of them seemed to have seen the article a day or two later in the Guardian in which the scientist they quoted was irate that his conclusions on global warming had been so misconstrued and inaccuarately reported. One of the wonderful things about this country is that we're allowed to have different views...Part of that privilege means that people on both sides of an issue can be swayed and influenced by "experts" who profess to have the answers. Some do. Some don't. At least you seem to agree that the climate is changing? Tom Benenson *** Mr. Benenson, Yes I agree the climate is in a state of change, and most of the educated skeptics don't argue that the climate isn't changing, but rather that is and always has. We know that historically the globe has been on a warming trend since the "little ice age". I ask you, when you hear that in the last 100 years the temperature has risen 0.6 degrees Celsius, have you ever asked yourself, "What portion of that 0.6 degrees is because of the natural upward trend?" Most people don't ask that when they hear of the rise, but assume it is entirely the result of CO2, something no climatologist claims. The truth is no one really knows what portion, yet that is fundamentally more important than the fact that there simply was a temperature change at all. [edited for brevity] ...you should look at a page on Wikipedia listing many dissenting published scientists as well as their quotes here (link). If you browse through them, you will find only 3 on that list that state that there is no global warming at all, and 39 scientists stating that natural forces play a much bigger role than does anthropogenic carbon emissions. I'm not sure what 'facts they are not facing', but I would be hard-pressed to conclude that by-and-large these people are having trouble accepting reality. -Ryan McGowan *** Ryan, Thanks for the civil--and interesting response. It would seem I made a mistake using the analogy I did, since so many readers seem to be focusing not on the point of the column--people aren't realistic about how far they can get on the fuel in their airplanes but on the analogy. I don't claim to know why there's global warming and whether at this point it's just one of the cycles, but I do accept the reasoning of the majority of experts.... Again, I appreciate your response. Tom