Climate change talk is about details

To the editor:

Global warming alarmists are fond of labeling skeptics as deniers and claiming that the science is settled. Yet, I don't know of a single skeptic that denies that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that, all other things being equal, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause some increase in temperature. But, how much the temperature would rise due to a doubling of CO2 concentrations, i.e. effective climate sensitivity, is not settled science.

Not so long ago, climate alarmists warned that the earth's radiation budget was so far out of balance that even if CO2 emissions were reduced to zero, global temperatures would rise for decades. But for the past 18 years, global CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen steadily, but global temperatures have plateaued or, according to satellite measurements, have even decreased slightly. The proof of the pause in rising temperatures is that alarmists are now trying to explain its causes. One recent explanation is that it's all due to natural variability. But, if that is true, couldn't the warming between the late 1970s and the late 1990s also be attributed to natural variability? Some of the temperature increase of that period must also be attributed to cleaner burning fuels that reduced sulfate emissions. Sulfates have a slight cooling effect because they reflect sunlight back into outer space. I'm all for conserving resources, but we should also learn from other people's mistakes. Electricity rates are skyrocketing in Germany because of green energy schemes.

Fred Hubler

Cedar Rapids