Open letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). A copy has been mailed to the Representative.
Dear Rep. Smith,
Congratulations on your recent ascension to Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology! With your having served in the House for 26 years and being an advocate for Science, Technology, and Space Exploration, as well as a supporter of increased oil and gas production, I am confident that you are well positioned to fulfill this role.
You are reported to be a supporter of federal aid to increased oil and gas production, to which I take exception. I am confident that the oil and gas industry can well fulfill its role to supply the American public, without the use of taxpayer funds from government. However, that is not the main point of my writing.
You are also reported to be a climate-change skeptic. The purpose of my letter is to better define the terms and reduce the matter of skepticism to that of conviction.
Climate change is a fact. There are good data showing that over the millennia, global climate has varied greatly. In the past several years, Earth temperature has apparently increased about 1°F. We have no reason to believe that these measurements are incorrect, and therefore accept that we are in the process of global warming, which is a climate change.
However, the significant difference among proponents, opponents, and skeptics involves whether human activities have caused and will continue to cause climate change. This is an extremely significant point.
If global warming has been caused by factors other than human involvement, it is less likely that any human corrective action will be effective, and the best course is to adapt.
Conversely, if global warming has been caused by human activity in increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, an obvious control on global warming is to control carbon dioxide emissions. There has been a limited acceptance of CO2 theory on the part of the public, private industry, and more so on the part of government officials. However, the theorists have been unable to prove connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The reason that the theory continues to exist appears to be opportunities for individual power and profit combined with a larger bloated government through CO2 emission tax revenues.
My objective with this letter is for you to consider the details of connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In this way, I hope you will become convinced, as am I, that there is none and that no consideration should be given at any time to the spending of billions of dollars to control CO2 atmospheric emissions.
I am attaching a recent essay on my reaction to Michael Mann's recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" [already in the blog]. In addition, I also refer you to other similar essays, which I have written over the past few years, and are contained in my blog http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment