Climate theories

Todd Whitcombe has been a valuable contributor to the Citizen for many years.

I generally agree with his comments and appreciate his common sense.

His column about climate change was valid if you accept CO2 as a meaningful GHG. He is correct – the solution is highly political.

Also that day, a comment was made about how the LNG exports that will lead to increased climate change.

To try bringing the issue into perspective, here are some basics that we might all understand and agree upon:

• Earth’s population has grown from 1 billion in 1900 to 7.5 billion today. Our personal needs have grown as well. How many people will Earth support?

• Infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc) have replaced vegetated areas. We all know that pavement and concrete converts solar energy to heat and retains that heat.

This effect is more concerning the closer you are to the tropics where the sun is more intense. Where is the majority of the world’s population located?

This is not included in the climate models.

• Prince George and my new home of Riverview have stateof-the-art wastewater/sewage systems.

Many countries, including China and India, dispose of much of their sewage untreated into the ocean. Sewage is acidic – the pH of oceans has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 over the years.

No scientist has included sewage in their climate model.

• Soot (black carbon), although less obvious in Canada, was very apparent in Beijing during the Olympics.

Elementary science tells us that dark material will convert sunlight to heat so why do many climate scientists dispute that?

Didn’t your mom tell you to wear light-coloured clothing in the sun?

Canadians are encouraging industry to locate in countries with lower environmental standards than Canada.

If you look around you and observe, the science is not that complicated.

If you listen to the many people in the multi-billion dollar climate change business, it does becomes complicated.

With the increase in human population, the replacement of vegetation with infrastructure, the sewage and waste, and humans increased demand for “stuff” one would reasonably expect the atmosphere to warm.

It is important to have a discussion but modern scientists shun anyone who would challenge their theory.

Some people would rather shut down the Canadian economy and send all production overseas than give in to a discussion.

For politicians, it is difficult to challenge because everyone knows the emperor wears clothes. Gerry Lundquist Riverview, NB