LETTERS; WARMING WARNINGS AREN'T TOMFOOLERY

To the editor:

Not too long ago, the tobacco industry was attempting to convince the public that tobacco products are harmless. To do this, they enlisted their own paid scientists to provide evidence negating millions of studies that linked smoking to respiratory and cardiac diseases. The public, many of whom had been hooked by the addictive weed, seemed all too willing to believe the tobacco companies. Now, as more and more evidence comes to light during legal battles between states and the industry, we realize tobacco companies had actively concealed damaging evidence all along. As historians frequently remind us, if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Now, in the case of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, we have a small cadre of folks who are arguing against the data and the interpretation of a vast number of experts on atmospheric issues. This cadre seems to be composed largely of right-wing political commentators abetted by a few scientists, many of whom are funded by the likes of a petroleum industry committed to business as usual and denial of any serious problems or consequences. The group of skeptics that Stan Crader (Nov. 27 letter) argues as being both large and composed only of experts is of questionable authenticity. I am aware of the mass-mailing that the group circulated a year or so back (it was not targeted just at experts) and can testify to the nonsense presented to defend their position. They are certainly not experts. An introductory-level biology student could easily identify the flaws in their arguments regarding biological processes. There is no reason to believe any other arguments are founded on better science.

Let us see what the evidence really suggests. Measurement of global surface temperatures, which is what is important since this is where we and all natural systems exist, reveal that last month was the hottest October on record. Every month this year has achieved such a distinction, and recent Thanksgiving temperatures suggest that November has a shot at continuing the trend. This underlines the pattern of the last two decades: We find that the hottest 10 years in recorded history have occurred during the last 15 years, while surface temperatures have risen between 0.5 and 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit since records began and while the 1990s have been warmer than the 1980s (then the hottest decade on record) by 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit (according to the not-too-leftist Goddard Institute of Space Studies). Should the pattern continue, the potential consequences could spell disaster of dimensions we can only imagine: Tropical diseases will probably move northwards into the United States and our food supplies would be disrupted since many agricultural activities would no longer match the climates where they exist and would be forced to search needed climates elsewhere where soils may be totally inappropriate. The same is true for forestry systems and aquatic systems.

In short, human health could suffer a direct impact, while our environmental life-support system could be catastrophically and irreparably damaged. No multibillion-dollar settlement decades from now is likely to remedy this disaster, just as it does nothing now for the thousands of humans who have lost their lives so the tobacco industry could make a profit.

The confusing data regarding cooling that Mr. Crader reports seemingly come from satellite records of high-elevation stratospheric patterns. While these data may be confusing, they are not really relevant to what is happening at the earth's surface, which is where we live.

Just as the tobacco-industry arguments appealed to addicted tobacco users who wished to deny the medical consequences of smoking, addicted energy users are buying a powerful disinformation program funded by the oil lobby and designed to convince the American electorate that nothing is wrong. And worse than that, their arguments regarding global cooling would be akin to a tobacco campaign designed to convince you that smoking is actually good for you.

It may be that this pattern is not solely driven by human activities. But supposing it is, and we do nothing? The dangers of global warming are no tomfoolery, even though Mr. Crader would like you to think so. We would buy into the publicity campaign that he has accepted and promotes at great risk to the future.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau