I’ve been writing letters to the editor in opposition to the notion of “man-made” global warming for about a dozen years.

I try to illustrate by comparing relative quantities of man-made CO2 versus natural CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and land.

I try to show processes and mechanisms that interact with these quantities to show why man-made CO2 is too small a factor in raising global temperature when compared to natural processes such as water vapor distribution, solar energy absorption/reflection, volcanism, etc.

Almost invariably, some, like the Aug. 8 letters, will do a rebuttal by citing various sources that promote the global warming scenario caused by “man-made” CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

But they seldom give a detailed explanation on how man’s tiny fraction of a percent of the total greenhouse gas budget is supposed to send us into “thermageddon.”

Newsletter signup for email alerts

You cannot always trust “authoritative sources” in science.

I’ve been subscribing to the prestigious AAAS “Science” weekly magazine for about 8 years. It’s a fanatically pro-evolution, pro-Man-made global warming, pro-old age of the earth, pro-heliocentric publication.

Part of its mission statement (in small fine print) says it publishes material on which a consensus is reached, as well as presenting minority or conflicting points of view.

Presentations of material opposing the four “pros” above are essentially non-existent.

This is why you can’t just cite sources for your point of view.

No one can defend evolution, old age of the earth and heliocentricity decisively; but that doesn’t matter to our higher education system; theirs is a “My way or the highway” attitude.

So if you’re going to cite names of supporters of man-made CO2 causing global warming; then please follow up with brief, basic science principles explaining how man’s tiny contribution of CO2 forces the entire globe to heat up.

I still like the magazine, lots of neat science in it, especially regarding the bottomless pit of new discoveries in the field of structural and molecular biology, which is vindicating Intelligent Design to the max; in spite of evolutionists tenaciously clinging to their evolution fantasyland precepts.

Phil Drietz