The two Langstaff Letters in February on climate change evoked many and varied comments, which is what we were seeking to do – i.e., raise awareness regarding issues and points of view that might not be addressed in the mainstream media. Here are some of the responses:

GLOBAL WARMING PETITION PROJECT

For some time, going back to Al Gore and his presentation ‘Inconvenient Truths,’ the idea has been that almost 100% of scientists support the popular view on climate change. But is this so? One reader sent me the following report ‘Global Warming Petition Project,’ in which over 31,000 American scientists have signed, including around a third of them with Ph.D.’s (petitionproject.org).

THE OPPOSITE POSITION

One reader gave the opposite viewpoint stating, “Undeniable great majority of proven physical science indicators, the history of recent observations, and the consistency in model assessments all support only one explanation: the emission of greenhouse gases by human activity is causing profound changes to the climate system and to the world we live in. Increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea levels led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), not the fake news media, in February 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal.’ Governments should be duty bound to oversee and control greenhouse emissions by the industrialized world for the good of their people, their countries and the whole world. Yet heads of governments, in a fallen world, are lured by their own simple-minded, myopic, constrained, and self- righteous vision of what “to promote the general well- being” is all about.”

RESPONSE FROM AUSTRALIA

I received a very interesting response from Australia. The whole letter can be read here. The writer believes that we have climate modifications, but he is basically stating:

  1. It is not caused by carbon dioxide.
  2. From his 60 years of experience as a research scientist, including monitoring seismic activity worldwide, he believes ‘The main cause is the increase in the earth tilt,’ and he gives his reasons for this.
  3. He has interesting comments on the Paris Accord and how that would apply to Australia as compared to China (likewise to other Western countries).
  4. He states that the hottest day on record in Australia was in 1828 when the temperature reached a blistering 53.9 degrees Celsius (129 degrees Fahrenheit).

RESPONSE FROM ZAMBIA

A reader from Zambia points out that in Zambia, temperatures are going down. He wrote, “In Zambia, Africa, where I have lived for 14 years I can say that the temperatures have slowly reduced. When we first came here, January was full of rain and hot. It is now mostly in the 80-90’s, and the frequent rains are now in February. October was unbearably hot, often near 100 F. We have seen a steady decline in temperatures in the hot season to more like 89. But on the other side we have seen an increase in the cold season May through August. We would often wake to face seeing our breath, but these months have been warmer. Sometimes those in America base their views only on America but call it global!”

OTHER RESPONSES 

“To suggest that man can control or change climate is lunacy. The Bible is clear who controls seedtime and harvest. The climate alarmists infuriate me.”

“From what I can see, climate change is not mentioned in scripture, nor is the possibility that man could/will destroy the earth.”

“Right now, in Oz (Australia), as a consequence of the recent fires and floods, there remain few climate ‘skeptics’ or ‘deniers’!”

CLIMATE CHANGE AND PANDEMIC

It will be interesting to hear what people make of climate change in this new era of the COVID 19 worldwide pandemic. It is obvious from satellite photos that the atmosphere over countries and cities, like India, has dramatically improved. What this will mean in the long term is not yet know.

CLOSING THOUGHT

Well, the debate goes on regarding climate change. Time alone will tell what all this means and what will happen next. We will undoubtedly revisit this issue in the future editions of the Langstaff Letter.