Just for the fun of it:
I find it objectionable to be talked down to by an “independent wildlife consultant” (guest column, April 10) on the validity of global warming or climate change. What exactly does a wildlife consultant do anyway that qualifies him to be expert?
I think there is some uncertainty about the cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 to temperature change. At the so-called Armageddon forecast concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a paltry 0.04 percent of the total atmospheric gases! Nitrogen comes in first, 78 percent, followed by oxygen at 21 percent. Everything else is thrown into the remaining 0.06 percent. How is it that such a small portion of the total atmospheric gasses has such an enormous impact on climate?
It may be true that glacial ice cores contain higher amounts of CO2 at different points in history, but how is this correlated to temperature to begin with? Maybe the sun was a bit hotter back then. Who exactly was here 100,000 years ago taking the temperature readings, by the way?
Regarding the official published government reports: governments don’t ever lie to the people now do they? Figures lie and liars figure.