Luckstead’s research meticulously researched

Advertisement

This letter is in response to Steve Singleton’s letter to the editor in the April 22 U-B. His letter castigates Steve Lucksted as “gullible” for his science article that discusses anthropogenic global warming.

I have known Steve Luckstead for many years and have always found him to be an honest man of science who carefully considers the “preponderance of evidence” before speaking any opinion on any topic in the scientific realm. This is especially true of his articles for the U-B, which are meticulously researched and well represent the state of scientific knowledge at the present time.

On the other hand, I have found Steve Singleton’s letters to the editor concerning this topic, though filled with technical jargon, to be void of much convincing content. I reached this conclusion by researching the organizations and scientists Mr. Singleton presents as the sources of his information.

Despite his proclamations to the contrary, I have thus far found his sources to be unimpressive, their “science” questionable and their source of funding troubling.

I have also read extensively about the studies and arguments presented in support of anthropogenic global warming. Now I will readily admit that I am not a climate scientist, but I do consider myself to be a relatively well-educated and non-gullible consumer of scientific news.

It’s hard not to conclude with any research at all that the vast preponderance of evidence implicates our species activities as contributing to global warming.

I also find it ludicrous to believe the bulk of the world’s eminent scientists and climate experts are colluding in a hoax to ensnare the gullible in some malevolent scheme.

Now, I well recognize that this is just my opinion. Most folks reading this don’t know me and I would encourage you all to research this issue for yourself. Mr. Singleton, and possibly others no doubt, will denigrate this letter as worthless and label me as gullible, but this issue is not one that can be decided by debating letters to the editor.

Scientific questioning is in order. There are many sources of information to peruse on this subject: books, articles, science journals and magazines and Web related content. Educate yourself and become competent science learning consumers.

I appreciate the U-B for printing Steve Luckstead’s excellent, enlightening and educational science articles,

Steve Zilliox

Walla Walla

Advertisement

Comments

paco1234 says...

Steve, we "tree huggers" are winning the battle! Just look around...everywhere, all over the country you now can see windmill farms producing power for millions of homes and industries. Solar energy is getting better and better, saving millions to consumers. Cars are now less polluting than ever...and getting better and more efficient. Research is advancing in obtaining power from the oceans. Green energy, all over the world is thriving, producing millions of jobs and benefiting consumers who are now saving money from cheap power. Programs for reforestation are promoted worldwide as we speak. Let's keep at it with resolve and dedication and stop the incredible damage to the environment by insensitive polluters . We are on the moral side of this debate and we will win for the benefit of Humanity.

Posted 4 May 2013, 10:14 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Yes, conservation and stopping real pollution (not CO2, which isn't pollution) are admirable and very worthwhile efforts. We've come a long way in turning around problems with dirty air, water and environment. My beef is with the trillions of wasted dollars being spent and planned to fight CO2 output ... which is also set to cripple our industrial output and make costs of electricity "necessarily skyrocket" as Obama stated when talking about shutting down the coal industry. That will NOT be beneficial to humanity and will instead set back development of Third World nations.

Posted 5 May 2013, 10:47 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Steve, your letter amounts to a plea for people to do more research. From what I've read, Steve Singleton would absolutely agree with you on that. And while it's always a good idea to consider scientists' possible biases, let's not forget to 'follow the money' or other incentives, on both sides of the issue.

Paco, windmills are far from a cheap energy source: They soak up billions in government subisidies and produce trivial amounts of energy. Nor are they pollution-free: They require huge imputs of carbon-emitting energy in their production, shipping, installation and maintenance, not to mention visually polluting millions of acres of previously beautiful landscape.

I've never understood how environmentalists have melt-downs over the idea of drilling for oil and uglifying a few hundred acres of land in the northern reaches of Alaska, where practically nobody will see the ugliness but the caribou, but have no problem with despoiling millions of acres of gorgeous scenery viewed by millions in the lower 48 states.

Posted 5 May 2013, 8:36 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Good points, PearlY -- windmills are not only a blight on our landscape and massive killers of eagles and other birds (well documented) but an unsustainable scam that cannot exist without our tax money subsidizing them. They will one day require more money to dispose of these wind farms. Regarding this letter, the author completely misunderstands one of my points -- I was NOT calling Steven Luckstead gullible ... I was referring to those masses of people who believe the misinformation (and disinformation) of those pushing this AGW hysteria. In fact, I like and enjoy Luckstead's articles very much and have for years. Except this last one on the false anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Posted 5 May 2013, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the AGW hypothesis is 'false' so much as 'unproven'. In fact, I'm not even sure it is falsifiable, at least as it is hyped to the masses as an explanation for anything that could possibly happen to earth's climate. And a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not a scientific explanation for anything.

If Dr. Luckstead should happen to be reading, I'd be curious to know how he would state the AGW hypothesis and what it would take to falsify it.

Posted 5 May 2013, 11 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

I believe the AGW hypothesis is false, PearlY, but would be satisfied if it was (at least) considered either 'unproven' or 'undetermined' -- certainly not 'settled' as Gore and others are wont to do. Could anthropogenic CO2 have some slight impact on temperature? Perhaps ... but if so, not significant enoughto drive serious warming or climate change. Solid 'falsification' may indeed be difficult but there is much evidence that the steady rise of CO2 since the Industrial Age has coincided with a steady rise in temperature -- which hasn't been the case .... temperature has risen and fallen.

Posted 10 May 2013, 1:36 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

Today we learned that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (ppm). This is first time in human history the levels have been this high, and some scientists—real scientists—estimate this is the highest level in three million years.

The burden of proof on this issue does not lie with people who “support the AGW hypothesis” as PearlY and others put it.

The burden of proof lies with people who believe that relentlessly dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will have zero effect on the livability of our biosphere.

Steve Singleton and other climate denialists refuse to accept this burden of proof, at least partly, I think, because they realize how difficult it would to convince people that our atmosphere is a bottomless garbage pit.

To accept the Singleton Hypothesis, it’s necessary to believe that thousands of scientists, across multiple continents, over more than two decades, have joined a secret conspiracy to distort the facts and create a false sense of panic.

As far as I know, Singleton has never even suggested a possible motive for this worldwide conspiracy, nor can he point to a single example of such a worldwide, decades long scientific conspiracy ever existing before.

On the other hand, there is the FUD Thesis, that people and organizations whose short-term profits and power are threatened by change can delay or even prevent those expensive changes by investing a few million dollars in the creation of “fear, uncertainty, and doubt.”

The FUD factories currently supporting climate denial have a crystal-clear motive: next quarter’s earnings statement. And there are multiple examples of this strategy being employed in the past.

The arguments against climate change are the same arguments, sometimes by the same people, against the idea that cigarettes cause cancer. We’ve heard the same arguments that it “crush the economy” to remove lead from gasoline, to stop acid rain, to protect the ozone layer, and on and on.

We can argue about the relative costs of proactively preparing for a radically warmer, wetter world versus the potential cost of doing nothing and hoping for the best. Last year’s Midwest drought and Superstorm Sandy might give us an insight into that arithmetic.

But until Steve Singleton or the Heartland Institute can come up with a theory on how the earth’s atmosphere and oceans can continue absorbing an increasing amount of CO2, without any negative impact on our fragile biosphere, we probably shouldn’t pay too much attention to their attempts to change the subject.

Posted 10 May 2013, 8:16 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

newguy, you challenged Mr. Singleton: "nor can he point to a single example of such a worldwide, decades long scientific conspiracy ever existing before."

I can point to something very like what you ask for, and that is the geocentric theory Galileo was punished for challenging. At a time when the Catholic Church controlled the scientific output of Western civilization through both carrots and sticks, it generally got the kind of science it wanted.

Today, a relatively small elite controls both the incentives (grants, awards, prestigious appointments) and the disincentives (denial of access to jobs and funding, vicious character assassination, career destruction) available within the scientific community, and it is naive to pretend, as you do, that it doesn't matter to scientists what side their bread is buttered on.

You may not have noticed it, but you also answered another of your own challenges.

You demanded that Mr. Singleton come up with a theory on how the earth's atmosphere and oceans can continue absorbing increasing amounts of CO2. But you also acknowledged that CO2 concentration was at least as high on at least one occasion 3 million years ago, before humans could have influenced it in any way. So one obvious theory on how the atmosphere and oceans could absorb today's CO2 levels is, simply, the same way they did it at least once (and probably many times) before.

Posted 15 May 2013, 3:38 p.m. Suggest removal

paco1234 says...

The PJM Interconnected Regional Grid, which includes 13 states from New Jersey to Illinois represents one fifth of the US total electric grid. An ongoing research found renewable energy cost effective, and is getting better when you add the extra benefits from the capacity to store such energy. By 2030 it is expected that renewable energy could fully powered a large city grid in its totality. As we speak moderate size electrical systems could be run entirely on stored renewable energy. This is no archaic hypothesis! Windmills have been in the human mind since before "El Quijote". This is modern science at its best.

Further information about this could be found in one of the 70 energy related volumes Mr. Singleton has on his pesonal library. Or just check " Popular Mechanics" monthly articles about the subject. For electric cars myths, please check today's UB.
What the heck, just check it out on any of the websites related to renewable energy!

Incidentally, I really appreciate your concerns about eagles. Let's add that one to the spotted owl's list!

Posted 5 May 2013, 1:45 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Fair enough, Paco ... I will spend some time with those volumes and report back. Much of my own research to date has indicated a contrary view about the impact of 'renewable' energy' both now and in the future (solar and wind). Sometimes Popular Mechanics can be a fairly reliable source of information but (in the speculation department at least) sometimes not.

Posted 10 May 2013, 1:44 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment