Download Is writing letters to the editor effective? Gordon J. Aubrecht, II, Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus and Marion, Ohio

Is writing letters to the editor effective?
Gordon J. Aubrecht, II,
Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus and Marion, Ohio
Abstract: My personal experience writing letters to the editor of my
local paper is shared.
“Now, if we look at the globe (°C):
GISS Annual Mean
NOAA Annual Mean Temperatures
Year Temp.Year Land
Water Combined
1
2005 14.762007 9.52 1998 16.582005 14.51
2
2007 14.742005 9.48 2003 16.581998 14.48
3
1998 14.722002 9.36 2005 16.572002 14.46
4
2002 14.692006 9.34 2004 16.562003 14.46
The local paper in my town, Delaware, Ohio, the Delaware Gazette, publishes many letters from ordinary citizens in a county that
5
2003 14.671998 9.34 2006 16.552006 14.46
has never voted for a Democrat for President since the formation of the GOP, and is thus pretty “conservative” in the strange sense
6
2006 14.662008 9.30 2002 16.552007 14.45
that now reigns as definition of the word. Letter-writers tackle issues mainly about “big government” and such political issues, and
7
2004 14.6 2003 9.28 1997 16.532004 14.44
hew the Inhofe party line about global warming, being skeptics and people pretty ignorant of energy policy (including people in
8
2001 14.572001 9.26 2001 16.502001 14.40
elective office). In addition, Delaware is home to a small university, but it does not have much leavening effect. I explain below
9
2008 14.542004 9.23 2007 16.482008 14.39
how I attempt to bring some sense to the situation through reply letters to the editor on these topics. Scientists need to express sci10 1990 14.481999 9.20 2008 16.471997 14.36
entific views in public as our duty to fellow citizens.
“Eight of the ten warmest years happened in the last decade. This is part of a table that shows that 22 out of the warmest 25 years
globally are from the last 25 years. This is unlikely to happen randomly.
The Delaware Gazette published, fo example, a letter to the editor from Mr. Rob Kessler entititled ”‘Smart’ drivers are fooling
“See 2008 at ninth according to GISS and (land and ocean combined) NOAA. It was tenth warmest in oceanic temperature and
themselves,” published on 5 March 2009. This was not the first such letter, and it has proved not to be the last! Mr. Kessler wrote,
sixth warmest on land.
”What a bunch of hogwash! I am so tired of hearing about man’s effect on so-called global warming and climate change. We
“So, where is ‘the absence of global warming during the past ten years’ you refer to in your column? Are you trying to find out
couldn’t alter the climate even if we tried. The truth is, Mother Nature does more to harm the environment and climate than Man
what’s really happening, or are you reading just the doubters, who are almost exclusively not climate scientists? Okay, so maybe
could ever possibly do. Do you actually know how much garbage is spewed into the air when a volcano erupts or how much methyou can’t read the literature in professional journals, but my book and other college textbooks addressing this question clearly spell
ane gas is emitted because of cow flatulence? What utter hubris it is to think that man has the ability to alter the awesome forces of
out what is happening.
nature!”
“What if the professional climate scientists are wrong? We’d lose some money, several trillions, but this is not a global tragedy.
“And what if the ‘climate creationists’ you are more or less representing in your column are wrong? The consequences of doing
Well, I sort of lost it on reading this letter. I wrote back the following: “Last week, the Gazette published a letter to the editor from
nothing are truly incalculable, petillions or more. Can we afford to take such a chance? I sure don’t think so, and I would think
Rob Kessler. Liz Robertson wrote a quite nice description of my Great Decisions talk the following day, noting that I had refuted
anyone who buys homeowners and car insurance would see the point.
several claims Kessler made in the second paragraph of his letter.
“Regards, in hopes that you take this climate crisis more seriously than heretofore,”
“He said humans could not affect nature; and specifically, that we couldn’t affect climate. He cited cows’ flatulence and volcanos’
Gordon Aubrecht
emissions to support his points.
“Volcano CO2 emissions annually are somewhere between 130 and 230 million tonnes, which is surely a large figure, I agree. But
Soon there was another letter, from attorney Robert M. Owens, published on 2 July 2009. “I write in response to the financial train
people emit 8 billion tonnes of carbon, which is 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This is somewhere between one
wreck (ACES) advocated by my fellow member of the bar, Marianne Gabel. At a time when our nation is faced with a severe
and two hundred times as much as volcanos emit. In addition to that volcanic garbage, which warms, sulfur oxides and particulates
shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation
are emitted that cool. Perhaps your readers will recall the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which caused a world temperature decrease
that plagues our energy-producing industries. Under no circumstances should we waste trillions of dollars on junk science that has
of 0.5 °C in 1992. If small emissions compared to humanity’s can cause such global effects, how can anyone think that there is no
been discredited scientifically and shunned by real environmentalists dealing with actual ecological problems.
human influence on Earth?
“Readers should remember well the Government’s assurances that the bailouts of AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., GM and
“Why do cows emit so much methane through belching and, yes, flatulence? Because there are about a billion and a half of them
Chrysler were “good investments.” How is that working out for us? That was just a few months ago and now they want us to swalon Earth. The prehuman population of aurochs on Earth was at best guess less than a million animals. The reason there are more
low another trillion-dollar boondoggle? To borrow from George W. “Fool me once, shame on….shame on you, fool me…you can’t
than 1500 times as many cows is simple: us. We eat beef and drink milk products. These animals emit 1500 times as much methget fooled again.” Obama is setting new speed records for broken promises. We should stop letting him make more promises.
ane, a potent greenhouse gas, because of us--domesticated animals emit more than one-fifth of the total emissions of methane.
“The scare tactics employed by Al Gore and parroted by mindless liberals nationwide are bunk. Discerning individuals would do
“I could (and did, in my talk) give other examples of outsize human impact on our planetary home. If your readers nodded in
well to Google “global cooling time magazine.” You will see the same socialist United Nations quacks using the same claims of
agreement to Mr. Kessler’s arguments, they should now stop and think about the sources of untrue ‘information’ they and Mr. Kesecological Armageddon in the 1970’s (with stories of a new ice age). It was bad science then, it is bad science now.
sler listen to or read from self-important broadcasters or climate creationists who would deny the data by asserting falsehoods as
As for the merits of man made global warming, the verdict is in – “Research data on climate change do not show that human use
the truth and expecting credulous people to believe them.
of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally
“There is a human fingerprint on the global thermometer, and if we ignore it, our children and their children for a thousand years
helpful.” – reports Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller
will bear the burden of our stupidity--assuming they can survive that long.”
University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world. The excellent video “The Great
Global Swindle” can be viewed online for free. The video features many internationally recognized scientists that completely trash
So, would you believe that just four days after my letter was published, another letter mentioned the “fact” that volcanoes emit
the junk science offered by the Al Gore drones.
more carbon dioxide than people?
“The fact that man mad e global warming is junk science is not to say that certain climates are not getting warmer nor is it to say
there are no genuine ecological concerns. The northern hemisphere is getting slightly warmer but historically the planet has had
It’s not just in the Gazette—the Washington Post and the Boston Globe also publish denier junk (but from their own columnists).
natural cycles resulting in much warmer temperatures as compared to today. This is due to natural solar cycles and warmer is actuFor example, Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, claims that there’s been global cooling: ”But considering how much
ally better for the planet and for humans. Also, clean and efficient energy options such as nuclear power should be advanced by
attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating,
natural market forces.
shouldn’t the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more no“Fraudulently misdirected global warming funds prevent real environmental concerns from being addressed. This fact is the prime
tice? Isn’t it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?”
motivator for a founder of Green Peace to speak out against the Al Gore theory of climate change. There are many legitimate con—March 8, 2009 (my emphasis)
cerns that lack necessary funding due to wasteful government largess directed by faux science.
“Our founding fathers set up a system of government that requires citizens to remain active and vigilant in the affairs of governI wrote to the Globe, too. “Dear Mr. Jacoby,
ment. Toward this end the public is invited to attend a free community briefing at the Delaware Old Bag of Nails, 7:00pm on July
“You correctly state that weather is not climate in your column ”Where’s global warming?,” but you go on to speak about the at2, 2009. There will be a presentation of “Obama’s first 100 Days” by William Jasper, Senior Editor of The New American Magatention lavished on the warming trend.
zine (<http://www.thenewamerican.com>www.thenewamerican.com), the nation’s leading conservative magazine.
“Just consider that the attention appeared in newspapers and TV, not in refereed publications. I’m not trying to demean the media
“With ACES, as with most card games, the ‘house’ is sure to win at you direct expense. Casinos did not build themselves in Las
in this country, but clearly sensationalism sells, so the media are poised to report the sensations.
Vegas just like vast, giant government buildings did not build themselves in Washington.”
“The refereed publications almost uniformly find the human touch in warming. There is spirited controversy about many points,
but not that human have affected the globe. There can always be honest mistakes, and science is set up to catch the bugs you refer
I replied: “While I have been away from Delaware, I see from the 2 July 2009 letter to the editor by Robert M. Owens that misunto, as well as honest and dishonest mistakes. You can read the relevant chapters 16 and 17 in my textbook and then extensions that
derstanding of climate change remains a problem here.
are on the web, see the signature below.
“First, Mr. Owens seems very sure of himself. He describes himself as a lawyer. This leads me to doubt that he has been reading
“It is true that 2008 was anomalously cold in the US compared to recent years, but North America is still only a small piece of the
the professional journals of climate scientists. While I am not a climate scientist myself, I have read thousands of refereed articles
globe. One would expect more variation over a small area than over the globe as a whole. “Looking at it this way, globally, 2008
from the climate and energy literature for my book Energy. Their ultimate message: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily
was still among the top 10.
human-induced.
“Here’s part of a table from a recent talk (you can get the full ppt by looking at the recent presentations on my website for my
“There is a natural limitation of science itself, that it cannot ever prove that what it says is true; it can only prove that something is
Great Decisions presentation).
false. Nevertheless we act as if we know what will happen (for example, the theory of gravitation is tentative but we all—including Mr. Owens—act as if it is correct because thousands of experiments that tried to find the theory wrong have been unsuccessful)
US temperature (°C)
and we will continue to use the theory unless we find a counterexample. This is true of all branches of science: gravitation, evolu1
1998 12.82
tion, and global climate change.
2
2006 12.80
There is no scientific doubt, beyond that inherent limitation, that humans are causing Earth to warm. The media pretend that there
3
1934 12.68
are two sides to every story, but some stories do not have two sides. Earth is an oblate spheroid, it is not flat. Humans are causing
4
1999 12.60
warming, it is not volcanoes, solar cycles, or anything else. People have walked on our Moon. Keys tossed up in the air fall down5
1921 12.52
ward.
6
2001 12.45
“Let’s suppose we will spend several trillion dollars worldwide to mitigate or fend off climate change. The best estimate is that it
7
2007 12.43
will cost about 3% of the global economic product to accomplish holding the temperature increase below 2 °C. If I’m right, we
8
2005 12.42
will spend and get the result we want—a small temperature increase. If Mr. Owens is right, we’ve wasted several trillion dollars.
9
1990 12.38
“Now let’s suppose we do not spend the money. If Mr. Owens is right, nothing will happen. If I’m right, there will be a global di10 1931 12.38
saster that will hobble our descendants for a over a thousand years (the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide exceeds a thousand
“Do you see that the preponderance of recent dates? Only three of the warmest US years are prior to 1990; half are from the past
years). Most species will be exterminated. We will have to figure out how to build technology to provide services nature currently
decade! This tells us something--it’s not random (there should then be roughly one a decade if it were--we have over 11 decades of
gives for free.
temperature data for the US). Overall, 2008 was 39th warmest out of 114 on record for the US, just ahead of 1997, hardly ‘cold.’
“We will have to pay huge amounts to rescue New York, San Francisco, and other coastal cities from sea level rise—or abandon
them to the sea. Rainfall may remain reasonable here in central Ohio, but the west will suffer droughts. Hurricanes will become
stronger and more strong hurricanes will make landfall in the US. All these are from a study Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program released 16 June 2009.
But let me ask Mr. Owens what he does about homeowner or car insurance. The chances are probably small he will be in a terrible
auto accident or that a tree will fall on his house, but I’ll bet he buys insurance to cover the catastrophic losses if they should happen to occur. That is because none of us, including Mr. Owen, can bear the cost if they do happen even if they don’t believe it will
happen to them.
“I’m advocating similar insurance for our planet Earth. Even if you doubt the effect will be as bad as I fear it will, you can’t afford
it if it does happen. We need to pay that 3% price to buy planetary insurance.
“If we don’t buy the insurance, think about the maimed world we might have to leave to our children and grandchildren … are we
ready to condemn them to that?”
On 17 June 2009, Jerry Lauer, President/CEO, Consolidated Electric Cooperative, Mt. Gilead, wrote: ”Some aspects of the national green movement have been a good thing for Ohio and our nation, but original intent and final result don’t always dovetail. This
is the case with a ‘global warming’ bill currently before Congress. It masquerades as a green measure, when in reality it’s a license
for Wall Street traders and financial speculators to gain control of energy pricing in America, as well as a source of massive tax
revenue for the U.S. government.
”Just before Memorial Day, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This legislation, soon to be considered by the entire House, is bad for Ohio’s consumers and economy since more
than 85 percent of Ohio’s electricity comes from coal-fired generation.
”The problem with the proposed bill is its reliance on cap and trade – capping greenhouse gas emission at three percent below
2005 levels in 2012 and then ratcheting down the cap every year thereafter. Since no technology exists for capturing carbon dioxide and sequestering it, most utilities, refiners, and other emitters will be forced to purchase or trade for emission allowances and
offsets needed to continue operations. (The legislation fixes the quantity of emission offsets, and the pool of emission allowances
declines over time.)
”A better description of the HR 2454 is “cap and tax”. At direct expense to consumers in increased prices paid for electricity, natural gas and transportation fuels, dollars will flow to Washington, D.C., and to other non-covered entities designated by Congress
to receive free allowances to sell. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts increased federal revenues (taxes) from these
emission allowances to exceed $846 billion in the next 10 years.
“The export of dollars from Ohio and other Midwest states is an especially punitive feature of HR 2454. The legislation grants free
allowances to electric utilities with mostly non-carbon generation (hydroelectric or nuclear). These free allowances in turn will be
sold to utilities that need them. This is an energy tax on consumers and disproportionately on consumers in Ohio and other Midwest states who are dependent upon coal-fired electric generation.
”Just as worrisome, cap and trade is an invitation for Wall Street to set prices for all forms of energy, including electricity. As the
pool of emissi on allowances available for sale diminishes in relation to the declining cap, we can expect sharply higher future unit
costs for emissions and offsets. Allowance auctions after 2012 will have the net effect of increasing household energy bills by driving up fuel prices and creating a multi-billion dollar playground in an unregulated companion trading market.
”Financial derivatives and futures markets are logical next steps in the new ‘carbon currency’ market. David Sokol in a Washington Post column published May 19, wrote: ‘If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you’re going to love cap
and trade… which lets investment banks, hedge funds, and other speculators participate in the market.’
”A climate change bill that doesn’t guarantee protection of consumers or the national economy, that exports jobs and investment
from Ohio and fossil fuel dependent regions to foreign countries (China, India) where the price of doing business is not dictated by
unrealistic and restrictive regulations, and that introduces volatility into the electric industry like we’ve seen in the oil and natural
gas sectors – well, such a bill would be a disaster of the first order.
“HR 2454 contain some good provisions and some not so good. The cap-and-trade system it would institute, however, is a fatal
flaw. It requires lower emissions without technology available to do so and it guarantees disproportionately higher energy costs for
Ohio’s consumers and industry with no assurance that carbon emission levels will in fact be lowered. And for this reason, it should
not be enacted into law.
”Please contact your Congressmen – particularly Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich – and ask them to only support
an energy bill that puts consumers first and gives priority to the affordability and availability of electricity.”
I responded: “Jerry Lauer’s opinion piece in last Wednesday’s Gazette pushes upon us the idea that cap and trade is unfair to us
because we are living in a coal-producing state and get most of our electricity from coal. He bemoans the increased energy costs to
come.
”It is true that most of our electricity comes from coal. What Lauer does not say is that our coal electricity is cheap because we
don’t pay all the costs ourselves, but dump the costs onto others. Objecting to the higher electricity price, Lauer is essentially asking others to bear some of our own costs for our electricity. When I lived in Europe, I paid the equivalent of something like 20
cents per kilowatthour. Now, I pay only about 11 cents a kilowatthour (see table below). That is pretty low. The lowest costs for
electricity are found in the mountains (due to government-subsidized hydroelectricity) and in the coal states—East & West North
Central and East South Central.
New England 17.57
Middle Atlantic 14.37
East North Central 10.82
West North Central 8.72
South Atlantic 11.16
East South Central 9.62
West South Central 11.6
Mountain 9.5
Pacific Contiguous 11.44
Pacific Noncontiguous 19.68
“If I put my trash in my neighbor’s yard and stop paying for trash pickup, I’m putting my costs onto him. We put the cleanup costs
(or the upkeep and health costs) onto people to the windward (Pennsylvania, New York, New England). A map of acid rain shows
a plume of black from the Midwest toward those states (you can view some of these onine for free on the website for my book,
Energy,http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0130932221,00.html). Their smog is caused in major part by us.
They pay the cost for our trash.
”In essence, we are being subsidized now by the rest of the country.
”We should pay for our own pollution. Cap and trade is one way to achieve this. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments, signed by
the first President Bush, cap and trade proved an economical way to reduce air pollution from sulfur. The cost was many billions of
dollars less than utilities claimed they would be. I would expect that to be true again. If you do contact your lucid elected representatives, do so to support a just outcome that assigns costs to those who benefit from the pollution. As Walt Kelly famously wrote in
a Pogo cartoon many years ago, ‘We have met the enemy, and he is us’.”
I do believe that a scientist writing letters can at least bring a modicum of reality to such wrongheadedly expressed ideas. I urge all
of you to write your newspaper and attempt to help people see the reality of the science on energy and climate change.