January 2005 - Tampa Bay Mensa

January 2005 7
The earth itself is covered in a sea of air; at sea level each square inch
of earth has 14.7 pounds of air above it - that is over a ton of air (2000
pounds) per Square Foot. There are roughly 28 million Square Feet
per Square Mile and there are roughly 197 million Square Miles of
earth. I shall leave the math for others here but the idea that the
exhaust fumes from my SUV are somehow polluting that
astronomical quantity of air is preposterous.
In conjunction with this sea of air I would point out before this
planet was "civilized" huge annual wildfires would rage
uncontrolled across the planet spewing much higher levels of
Carbon Oxides and particulate matter than are common today.
The infinitesimal amount of time man has spent on this earth relative
to the age of the planet leaves us impotent to determine just what is
a normal temperature or how a natural climate change should
progress. I should point out to my Anti-Capitalist friends here we do
not have to worry about destroying the planet; we may destroy
ourselves but I'm quite sure the planet will be just fine.
The author replies:
Ronnie Dubs
justapoorwhiteboy@hotmail.com
The preceding letter is in response to my article in the November
issue of the Sounding, 'What You Should Know About Global
Warming." It is my opinion that my article was carefully researched
and indeed provided a good deal of "what you should know about
global warming." (If you have not read it, you should!) It was
organized into numerous subtopics, one of which near the end of the
article discussed the possibility of human impact on global climate
via industrialization. It was balanced in that it allowed for the
possibility that rising temperatures could either be part of a natural
cycle or caused by industrial greenhouse emissions. The article
notes that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and global
temperatures have risen in concert since the beginning of
industrialization and asks – literally – whether it is more reasonable
to believe these variables are connected in some causal manner
versus being a coincidence. Not only did I deliberately not make
render any possibilities about the cause of global warming as the
"truth," and did not make any "connection" between mankind and
climate, but I specifically pointed out the illogic of confusing
correlation and causation.
8 Tampa Bay Sounding
My article did not contain nor imply any political tone. Indeed, if
one is viewing a phenomenon scientifically, would not the theories
that followed be the same regardless of one's politics
Of course, forest fires as well as volcanic eruptions, etc. have
occurred throughout history, but the information in my article
clearly shows that a natural balance existed in carbon dioxide levels
up to the point in time preceding the beginning of industrialization
in the 19th century. The article does not mention vehicles, let alone
SUV's.
Mr. Dubs Mars example is so flawed I hesitate to explain: He points
out that both Mars and Earth are warming, so logically it could not
be humans causing the warming. That would, in fact, be logical if
humans were the only possible reason for global warming. Even if
only Earth were warming, we could not, as my article stated, assume
humans were the cause.
Overall I see little connection between my article and Mr. Dubs
letter, so I have no further points to clarify. I certainly hope the
majority of you found the information I presented in the article
enlightening and thought provoking, and please feel free to contact
me directly with your views or questions.
Dan Chesnut
Chesnut314@aol.com
The editor adds:
I was conflicted about the inclusion of this letter in the Sounding,
given the injunctions in the submission guidelines on the inside back
cover of this magazine. However, I found the statements following
the first paragraph interesting. After corresponding with both Mr.
Dubs and Mr. Chesnut on the topic, I have decided to run these.
This may be a one-time occurrence. The correspondent assured me
that this letter was not intended as a personal attack, and since Mr.
Dubs initiated the offer for Mr. Chesnut to respond, I promised to
take him at his word. But my perception remains that this was
generally hostile and non-constructive, not unlike much of
contemporary media punditry. I am looking forward to feedback
from you, the readers, with ideas for providing a properly conducive
environment for the type of intellectual discussion that Mensans can
best appreciate.
Thomas George Thomas
FardleBear@aol.com