Letters to the Editor (Nov. 6)

To the editor:

There is no climate emergency! Those are not my words, but rather the words of 500 of the world's most knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate related field.

This information was sent to the United Nations Secretary General and the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on September 23rd, 2019 urging them to reconsider their stance on climate change.

Their letter remarks that "the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose". The letter continues to explain that these computer models exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. They urge the United Nations to follow climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly and unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

The 500 climate experts from 24 countries argue that, natural as well as anthropogenic (man-made) factors cause warming, that warming is far slower than predicted, that current climate policy relies on inadequate modeling and that CO2 is plant food, which is the basis of all life on Earth. They close their arguments by stating that global warming has not increased natural disasters and that climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.

I invite science teachers at Niwot High School to include this information in your lesson plans in order to expose your students a balanced view on climate change.

The following links are provided for your convenience:

clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf

clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-press-briefing.pdf

clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

Dick Piland,Niwot

To the editor:

In his recent letter to the Courier regarding climate change, R. Eggers recommended three google search strings. Google is a wonderful tool for chasing down details, but it is not a good way to develop an understanding of a subject of any complexity. So I will reply by recommending three books. Books written by actual scientists and historians of science. Books that support their claims with references to peer- reviewed scientific research. All three are available through the Boulder Public Library - I checked.

Recommendation #1: "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart.

Recommendation #2: " Climate Change: Picturing the Science", by Gavin Schmidt, Joshua Wolfe, and Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Recommendation #3: "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars", by Michael Mann.

Robert Parson,

Heatherwood

To the editor:

In response to the recent letters to the editor regarding climate change/crisis, I would like to share my perspective on the debate. Whether you deny there is a climate crisis or wholeheartedly believe there is one, we can still find some common ground and be exemplary stewards of our planet.

In the spectrum of climate crisis deniers, I would presume some are good stewards of our planet and may believe our planet is warming, but it is just not a crisis. I would think that many climate crisis deniers make conscious efforts in their lifestyles every day to protect our environment. On the flip side, I would not presume those who believe we are in the midst of a climate crisis, are doing all they can to reduce their carbon footprint. Many believe there is just nothing one person or family can do to make a difference. But there is.

Regardless of where you stand in the debate, we should hedge our bets on the presumption that humans are in fact causing the planet to heat up. The worst case is this presumption proves to be wrong, but in the process of doing the right thing for the environment, we can feel good about the positive impact we all have made. It’s a win-win.

You can install solar panels on your house or buy into Jack’s Solar Garden or subscribe to Xcel Windsource as a tenant or homeowner. Drive less, carpool, take the bus or buy a gas efficient car when you have the option. These transportation options cost less, reduce congestion on our roads, pollute less and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Install smart thermostats, super insulate your attic and weather-strip your doors to reduce your energy consumption. Often the upfront cost is offset by the energy savings.

Plastics take a very long time to break down and are polluting our oceans, lakes, rivers, and landscape. Fossil fuel is a key component in the manufacturing of plastics. You can buy used products, refuse to buy products that use too much plastic and recycle. There are challenges in the economics of recycling these days, but recyclers are still finding markets.

Reduce or eliminate your consumption of beef. This may be sacrilegious to many to even suggest, but it takes a lot of fuel to raise a cow and cows emit a substantial amount of methane which is a greenhouse gas. You may even end up being healthier as a result and no doubt there is a better outcome for the cow!

So no matter where you stand on the debate, why would we all not take some action in our daily lifestyles and keep our world in mind with every decision we make? Together we can have a major positive impact on the health of our planet for ourselves and generations to come. There is no planet B.

Jim Dorvee, Niwot