I appreciate Dick Swenson's letter for helping to make my point about global warming hysteria (Proving, disproving global warming not possible, Dec. 23).
Indeed, no one can prove man's contribution of carbon dioxide - or even naturally occurring CO2 for that matter - drives significant global warming or climate change.
Yet the burden of proof should still rest with those who are forcing us to fund preposterous, economy-destroying efforts to combat a problem that does not exist. And if they cannot, then why should we continue to trust their claims that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?
I agree completely with Mr. Swenson that global climate is a very complex system. However, the one thing that can easily be excluded as a likely source of warming is man-generated carbon dioxide.
That's simply because at the same time that global mean temperatures remain low or even decline, man-generated CO2 - albeit a minute amount compared to other so-called "greenhouse gases" including water vapor - has risen dramatically. If man-generated CO2 actually warmed the planet you would see a parallel rise in temperature that doesn't exist.
Of course it's difficult to prove a negative - the "warmests" are well aware of that - but again, positive evidence must be provided by those who are using CO2 as a vehicle with which to become rich at our (and the world's) expense. Note that populations of poor underdeveloped countries are now being deprived of the same "fossil-fuel" energy that enabled the greatest industrial powers to achieve history's highest standards of living.
Mr. Swenson's claim that I "cherry-pick" evidence is both disingenuous and wrong. I'm not a scientist, but I am a darn good researcher - and have been studying this issue closely for many years. I can list over 50 books on the subject that include numerous studies on all aspects of climate science by a wide variety of climatology-related experts that provide more-than-reasonable evidence that IPCC climate modeling is faulty, explaining exactly why with peer-reviewed studies, graphs and charts.
Furthermore, the truth becomes obvious when one applies logic and reason when considering this scam and the agenda behind it.
Mr. Swenson asked, "What is wrong with simply trying to reduce human impact on our planet?" If true that anthropogenic CO2 has no significant planet warming impact, then spending trillions, crippling economies and dramatically raising energy costs is definitely wrong. Besides, CO2 - a byproduct of civilization - is beneficial to the planet, not detrimental.