ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Global lukewarming |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Global lukewarming

The late Charles Krauthammer’s book “The Point of It All” includes an article titled “Apocalypse With and Without God.” He cites major apocalyptic writings which have authoritatively and “scientifically” predicted the demise of civilization. He includes Paul Ehrlich’s best-seller “The Population Bomb,” an astonishingly wrongheaded prediction of the end brought on by overpopulation — by 1983!

In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted with hilarious imprecision resource depletion (by 1992, for example — no oil!).

This brings me to the current “global warming” rage and the Paris accords that President Obama accepted and promulgated. Pope Francis, Gov. Tom Wolf and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto are proselytes. I find it astounding how clergymen and politicians transmogrify into climatologists.

Any individual seeking the truth on global warming should review a chart on page 7 in the book “Lukewarming” by Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger, which compares temperature projections by global warming scientists (charlatans) to actual recorded temperatures from 1977 to 2015. The projected estimates were four times greater than those actually recorded.

The following is a direct quote from the book: “The atmosphere isn’t warming nearly as fast as is predicted in the forecasts that serve as the basis for some of the most onerous environmental regulations ever proposed (and adopted). In fact, you might say, instead of dramatic warming, lower atmospheric temperatures are lukewarming.

Jack Bologna


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.