Controlling pollution

Your editorial “Controlling pollution” (Oct. 19) shows the erroneous link between pollution and climate change and the habit of the media of rejecting sound science for melodramatic scare stories. The president of the Maldives need have no fears about his nation being submerged. The science writer Christopher Booker has pointed out that even if all Arctic ice melted it would no more raise sea levels than melting ice in a glass of juice raises the level of juice in the glass. Your editorial clearly shows the political nature of the global warming bandwagon. In his article “Global warming or global freezing — Is the ice really melting” F. William Engdahl points out, “The current global warming propaganda scare is being hyped by politicians and special interests such as Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms that stand to reap billions trading new carbon credit financial futures.” Engdahl goes on to state that global warming is really, “A thinly veiled attempt to misuse climate to argue for a new Malthusian reduction of living standards for the majority of the world while a tiny elite gains more power.” Cryosphere Today published by the University of Illinois sets out the reality concerning Arctic ice. Each summer around eight million square miles of sea ice melts, each September the Arctic freezes over once more. The publication states that “the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last year — which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in Sept. 2007.” Of course politicians and their media lackeys and financial backers will hide these facts as they need the global warming story to politically correctly control us and, of course, make oodles of money at taxpayers’ expense. The general public need to waken up to the fact that global warming, like swine flu, is hyped out of all due proportion. They are moneymaking rackets and only have the good of sectional interests at heart. One day global warming will be seen for what it really and truly is — something that is in the same category as medieval alchemy and the geocentric view of the universe.

Francis A. Andrew, By e-mail, published 20 October 2009

Fire safety

This is in response to your article “6 firemen die in lift” (Oct. 19). It is really unfortunate that the firemen died due to suffocation as the lift got stuck. One of the basic lessons taught in any fire safety program is that you never use the lift if there is a fire in the building. The firemen are supposed to be trained in safeguarding their own lives and the lives of others from fire and suffocation due to smoke. Unfortunately the noncompliance with one basic safety rule has cost them their lives.

Mohammed Sadullah Khan, Riyadh, published 20 October 2009

Global warming

This refers to the letter “Global warming” (Oct. 17). I have no desire to get dragged in a global warming debate with Peter Jones. There has already been a lot of snubbing of him by other readers of Arab News. However, his convictions are obvious and so is his knowledge on the subject. What Jones chooses is to ignore the findings of top scientists from the science academies of the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Canada and India. Instead, he much rather trust Paul Hudson, a weatherman at BBC Look North show, Marco Tedesco, an assistant lecturer at City University of New York (CUNY), and Andrew Monagham, a minor league scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). It is like Peter Jones prefers to visit a mechanic with pliers to get his tooth pulled or trying to solve the “Rubik’s Cube” puzzle in a dark room.

An open-minded perusal by Jones of a recent report by the UN’s IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch) would be a good start. Three Nobel Prize recipients for science, including studies of the atmosphere are part of the scientific majority that have contributed to this report. This UN-sponsored organization is world’s most authoritative body of scientists and was honored with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work.

Dr. John Holdren, the top adviser to US President Barack Obama for science and technology wrote in Boston Globe of Aug. 4, 2008 issue: “Long-time observers of public debates about environmental threats know that skeptics tend to move, over time through three stages. First, they tell you you’re wrong and they can prove it i.e., the climate is not changing in unusual ways or if it is, human activities are not the cause. Then they tell you you’re right but it does not matter i.e. it is changing and humans could be contributing to it but it won’t do much harm and may be even good for you. Finally they will tell you that it matters but it is too late to do anything about it. Most of these skeptics are in the second stage and some are already shifting to the third stage. These skeptics infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces and cocktail conversations.” Does it sound familiar? Just recall the number of letter Francis Andrew and Peter Jones wrote to Arab News disputing global warming and promoting global cooling.

Jones points out: “thus it is important for all people to realize that humanity has much more to worry about failing crop yields, hunger and disease that may accompany a prolonged period of natural global cooling.” He is right except that the epidemics he is warning about will occur not because of global cooling but from global warming, which he himself admits in the first sentence of his letter.

So, let’s get serious. The best option for humans is to adopt eco-friendly practices and start reducing their carbon footprint on this planet earth. It is well documented that each North American introduces 28 metric ton of CO2 into the atmosphere in their lifetime. Any action taken to reduce carbon emission would be welcomed by “Mother Nature.”

Iqbal Paul, By e-mail, published 20 October 2009

Baseless assertions

In his letter “Baseless assertions” (Oct. 19), Francis Andrew has made a long-list of his own “baseless and unsubstantiated assertions” regarding global warming. From past letters, Andrew got a long-list of scientists, science institutes, documentation, studies and books that support the fact of global warming; and yet he ignores them and continues to demand the very sources that he’s already been given! He asks for the documentation, gets the documentation and then studiously ignores it. Is this scientific, reasonable and objective? Also, I have searched on the Web the studies and names provided by Andrew and have found that he only submitted the research favorable to his opinion and ignored the rest. For example, Andrew claimed that NASA and Goddard Space Institute supported his views of nonglobal warming. They did nothing of the sort! In fact, they confirmed global warming. Andrew arrogantly claimed that any scientist who agreed with him is a “real scientist” and by implication those who disagreed were not. Again, I ask is this objective and rational? Andrew constantly says that supporters of global warming are being “politically correct.” So, now Andrew claims that anyone who supports the belief in global warming isn’t scientific, they are simply political. And that is Andrew’s most glaringly “baseless and unsubstantiated” smear against science so far. I must pose this question to Andrew. Since you are a member of the British National Party and the BNP doesn’t support a belief in global warming, does this mean your disbelief in global warming comes from political loyalty? If so, that’s neither scientific nor objective.

Sharif Dua, By e-mail, published 20 October 2009