Getting Rid of 'Green'

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that we humans can no way influence the earth's climate when in fact in earth's long history organic beings in great numbers have changed the dynamic of the atmosphere. The proliferation of plants and algae in the past led to an increase in oxygen for example. So why can't it be seen that rapid increases in massive industrial human activities, deforestation, pumping out CO2 from under the ground into the air, to name a few, can lead to an alteration in the delicate balance of our atmosphere?

I agree with the article and some of the post in that the energy/climate debate needs to be posed in less political, more scientific and economic terms. Give me Far Left fear tactics and talk about "saving the planet", I have no interest. Give me Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi (drive smaller cars and wait for the wind?), I have even less interest. You tell me that you have serious ideas to get me better, cheaper energy, more job and a stronger economy, better take care of the planet, and sound science to support this, you will have my complete support.

For example, I only recently switched to CFLs after talking to people and doing research to find out that they last longer, waste less energy, and work better (and they have the bio-hazard mercury problem). I bought them not to save the planet, just the CFLs were overall better bulbs. You offer me energy that is just overall better than fossil fuels, I'll buy that too.

As long as right-wing idiots like Rush Limbaugh ridicule climate change and envrinmental protection, many people will continue to believe that policy and behavior change is not necessary. It is high time to remove politics and religion from scientific debate.

I was shocked at the lack of depth in your reporting of the "Green" issues. Several things were abjectly overlooked. First, MANY scientists will tell you that what man does has negligable effect, solar activity is pretty much all that matters regarding the Earth's surface temperature. Secondly, to borrow an old joke, "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in nuclear accidents in America." We have a plentiful, cheap, renewable energy source in this country and we do not use it - mostly due to government over-regulation. Lastly, recycling and re-use is a good thing and we need to do more of conserving our national and the world's resources but trying to bully or scare people into doing this is not the way to do it. Al Gore may have his Oscar and his Nobel and he may be a polarizing force in America - but that is no more relevant than it is deserved. We need to teach people to recycle because it is the right thing to do.

Jimi Whitten

I think it's fine to do small things such as switching to compact fluorescent bulbs if you feel that that's related to your approach to "going green." But for me personally, I have no plan to switch over to such fluorescent bulbs, nor did I join in shutting anything off during the recent Earth hour. I figure that if we adjust our air conditioner settings slightly each summer and settle for even SLIGHTLY less indoor coolness, and do that ALL summer long; and, each winter, make a similar adjustment to even SLIGHTLY less indoor warmth and maintain that ALL winter long, and walk more when possible, that will save an IMMENSELY greater amount of energy than changing any of your lightbulbs or participating in any "Earth hour." (Besides, have you read the official recommendations about what safetly precautions we're urged to take if we buy any of those CFL (compact fluorescent) light bulbs, if one of them accidently is BROKEN? You're supposed to open the windows and leave the room for at least 15 minutes, then wear gloves during clean-up of the broken bulb. I would MUCH RATHER simply use major appliances (like air conditioners) more prudently & save energy on a more serious scale than the VERY LIMITED energy effect that CFL bulbs would have on your monthly household electric bill.

What's our nation doing on new energy construction to greatly increase jobs? not much. First, there is no plan in constructing new plants on nuclear, hydro and conventional power plants as well as off shore drilling. Recently,according to the WSJ, even the manufacturing of solar and wind power plants have been reduced to one half compared with one year ago, due to shortage of capital. Are we going to face serious shortage in electricity as our population grows and the use of hybrid plug-in cars increase ? Does that mean higher electricity rate ahead ?

There should be no surprise that 41% of Americans think that concerns about climate change are exaggerated. Let's turn to Friedman's own newspaper for one of many examples. One of his fellow New York Times columnists wrote a story entitled "As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy." The thesis was that a particular species of mosquito was coming to Italy's coast on ships from Africa and that its spread North was due to global warming. The article sounded an alarm that this mosquito brought with it a tropical disease.

The article showed an appalling lack of historical knowledge. Boats have been going back and forth between Northern Africa and Italy for 2500 years. As everyone knows, Italy has a temperate climate that easily supports mosquitoes. What the author didn't know was that this particular area of the coast is actually cooler than places like Rome or Florence. She provided much to support that the cause of the virus was a particular type of mosquito known in Africa, but gave no support that its migration was in any way connected to global warming. She didn't even provide weather data to show that this particular town was warmer than it was a decade or two ago.

I am not one of those people who believes that global warming is a hoax. It's real, and it is important. However, if I can easily pick out the holes in the journalism in an article like this, then what is the credibility of the New York Times in areas where I'm not as well informed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Elisabeth%20Rosenthal%20italy%20mosquitoes&st=cse

People have been resistant to you for several reasons. People will tune you out when you call them dumb all the time. People observe weather persons getting five day forecasts wrong all the time so why should they believe your 10 year forecasts? Frankly you have lost credibility. First you claimed that all climate scientists agreed as to the cause of Global Warming. When that did not work you claimed that the climate scientists that disagreed with you were equivalent to flat earth people or were on the payroll of the energy companies. The same deligitimization of accredited experts and claims of existential threats that were used in selling of the Iraq War are fresh in minds of some