Global threat sparks university debate

After reading your article, “The Soft Science of Global Warming,” I was happy to see that you considered both sides of the issue when writing your piece. Your stance on this debate rests on the fact that over the last decade, global temperatures have not increased. This 10 year research that you used to debunk Professor Schlesinger’s findings on global warming is politically biased and flawed for several reasons.

I was intrigued at your audacity in openly challenging an expert who says that we need to take global warming seriously. Basing your opinion on this issue from 10 years of recording the Earth’s average temperature is obnoxious. I don’t know about you but 10 years out of 4.6 billion seems quite miniscule.

It is interesting to see you point out your own hypocrisy when you say, “A reasonable man would demand extraordinary evidence before calling for a functional ban on industrialization.” The fact that you call pollution laws ‘a ban on industrialization’ is its own issue, but more importantly, you are stating that one should gather a great deal of information before acting on your opinion. Your whole argument rests on one point: The fact that global temperatures haven’t changed for 10 years now. Is that your extraordinary evidence?

Here’s what 10 years of ignorance have brought us: melting ice caps, increasing number of deadly hurricanes and drought in Australia., a leading Web service of the green movement, states that greenhouse gases like CO2 (carbon dioxide) can increase ocean areas up to 2C, increasing the intensity of hurricanes by a chunky percentage.

David Karoly of Montash University states, “This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly seen.”

The fact of the matter is, all the effects are clearly seen, the global warming hoax is more full of crap than carbon credits.

Stoyan Kolev

Junior in Engineering