Hyperlink:

http://www.denverpost.com/perspective/ci_4104579

Dear Sirs,

I would like to take both you and Mr. Cox to task for the publication of the article entitled “Cooling the mall, heating the planet” published in the 7/30/2006 edition of Perspective. The first issue that sincerely concerns me is the title ascribed to Mr. Cox of “Senior Scientist”. While I have little doubt that Mr. Cox is a scientist, and may even be extremely well respected in his particular field, since his area of research and training is plant breading, it does not lend itself to global climate change. Your publication of his title solely as “Senior Scientist” therefore is tantamount to adding authority to his opinion on the subject matter not necessarily present. I can only assume that this is intentional as Mr. Cox publishes widely using the title of "plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas”. Indeed even in the original publication he is listed as a “plant breeder and senior scientist at the Land Institute”.

But maybe Mr. Cox works with a world class climatologist, heck, he might even work for Dr. Gray! But, no… We find that the “Land Institute”, according to it’s website, does not employ a single climatologist. Hey, I was trying to give you one there guys!

Moving on into the article we find very soon that alarmingly “16 percent of the average U.S. household's electricity consumption” is used for air conditioning, with no mention of how much life sustaining heat for the winter months is in this percentage. This places this total and statistic in the range of a “Straw Man”, and now we are tilting at windmills (pun intended) to find the coherent thought. What Mr. Cox would like us to believe is that this is an ungodly amount of energy. But without the physical numbers i.e. the amount of Kilowatt hours this represents I am left with out a comparison. I would wager that heat (produced in much of the US via the same heat pump that produces the air conditioning) is higher, and would be right by going to www.rmi.org the Rocky Mountain Institute by CO2 emissions space heating (as of 1997) was about 4 times higher than AC. What else is there, well you will find out that “other appliances” in my estimation that would be TVs, VCRs, Desktop Computers, ect…, is over 3 times as high as air conditioning not the “same as” as listed in the article, but Mr. Cox just might have updated numbers on me. Perspective changes everything.

We also find out from Mr. Cox that the refrigerants used in air conditioners are also global warming gases! Funny, I hadn’t heard this one before. A simple Google search for “refrigerant global warming” does show that the new refrigerants can in fact be global warming gasses (not exactly proven as of now). Pity that we were forced to move away from using Freon by alarmist like Mr. Cox, just because it was never proved that it created holes in the ozone layer.

The simple facts are this, CO2 has never been proven to cause global warming. In fact there is a case for global warming causing higher levels of CO2! The levels of CO2 caused by humans is miniscule compared to the overall production by nature. And, since CO2 is actually heavier than O2 and is one of the heavier gases in the atmosphere it tends to sink and be absorbed by things like plants.

Another fact missing from this debate is the actual top greenhouse in the atmosphere is water vapor. This accounts for about 4% of gases contained in the atmosphere. But how much CO2 is there, you ask? Well let’s see if we can make a comparison based on the pre and post industrial revolution numbers. It would seem that the air pre-industrial had about .028% CO2, and post-industrial it up substantially to .038%. Wow! With that information in hand, why isn’t Mr. Cox calling for a ban on watering my lawn? In fact, we should stop all of the grain we are growing for ethanol production, because I am sure it needs to be watered.

So what are we to do? Without a single solid piece of provable evidence that humans are causing global warming, we are to place a huge burden on our economy? This is all based on computer models that can’t regularly tell us if there is going to be rain tomorrow, but can, if we believe people like Mr. Cox, tell us what the water level in Central Park will be in 2020. I don’t think I will be wearing hi-waters, but who knows that may be the fashion.

I have worked with computer models before, I doubt Mr. Cox has. But be that as it may, I know that the models are only as good as the information put in them. A simple fact is that we can not record, enter, and compute the amount of data necessary for a good model to exist. This means that we are dealing with a stick figure compared, to the Rembrandt of mother nature. These models give us the inkling of a possibility, not a scientific fact, and may yet be based in incorrect or faulty data.

One final point to make is that the production of greenhouse gases would have been substantially lower if we had not abandoned nuclear energy in the late 70’s. And that industrial production of CO2 in the US has dropped substantially over the last 20 years. Once again we let the alarmists drive us away from a safe, clean fuel source. Will Mr. Cox be happy when we are living in caves again? I hear that they are very well insulated.

http://corruptedlamb.townhall.com