Hot Air To the Editor, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That adage was ably demonstrated in Michael Burns' "140 Degrees" (Tucson Weekly, February 15). We believe Burns was attempting to argue there are anthropogenic causes to the current global warming trend and that we should do something about it, a point of view with which we strongly agree. However, the article was replete with errors of fact, errors of interpretation, and errant speculation to an extent we find damaging to the very cause Burns and we each advocate. Burns' article insulted the intelligence of the Tucson Weekly's readership and did not in the least resemble the rational, level-headed journalism they deserve. Science is a creative expression of the human intellect, and is therefore invariably fallible, subject to error and incomplete. But most importantly, the scientific process is self-correcting. It moves toward consensus, a consensus in which the conclusions about a particular topic (such as global warming) are independent of the individual scientist. A product of this process was the one-column sidebar from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). This column was rational. It did not pretend to know things we are ignorant about and was free from unreasonable speculation. Its concluding idea, that an anthropogenic greenhouse warming will be unprovable until it is too late to counter effectively, represents the true understanding of this issue, and is in itself sufficiently unsettling to spark real debate about greenhouse gas emissions. The overall tone of Burns' article was extreme and dichotomous. It belittled anyone disagreeing with its alarmist rhetoric as being lead by "Republican talk-radio gasbag Rush Limbaugh." By attaching the label "The Conservative Consensus" to the UCAR statement ("conservative" for no apparent reason other than to link the sidebar to Republicanism), the reader is left with the impression that UCAR represents some extreme ideological position and Burns represents the voice of rationality when in fact the opposite is the case. "Conservative" and "Republican" have special meaning to The Weekly (e.g. "vicious, mean-spirited, screwball, fuck-headed...den of Mesa Republicanism," The Skinny, Tucson Weekly, February 22). Linking these terms to the UCAR article is irresponsible and just short of libelous. A far more accurate label for the UCAR column would be "The Scientific Consensus." No, it does not provide definitive answers about the human role in global warming. That is because those answers are not yet known. We must live with the knowledge that we will have to make societal decisions based on incomplete information. It is a far better thing to be certain in one's ignorance than to act out of a delusion of omniscience. Burns' article on the other hand, is precisely the kind of alarmist rhetoric that provides ammunition for Limbaugh and others who would deny the scientific validity of global warming. Burns greatly exaggerates the expected rate and magnitude of warming and its destructive impact. It is now estimated that warming over the last hundred years was 10 degrees Fahrenheit. During the next hundred years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates another 2-8 degrees Fahrenheit of warming. Therefore 140 degree Fahrenheit records are unlikely in Arizona in the next 100 years, let alone 160 degrees Fahrenheit. Burns mentions various recent record events. Records can always be expected even without global warming because of the shortness of the observations and natural variability. 1995 may or may not have been the warmest year on record, depending on measurement method (global temperature data from satellite shows 1995 was the eighth warmest year since data collection began in 1979, 17 years ago). Simple solutions (stop all emissions!) do not exist to this problem. Reductions in CO2 emissions have real, detrimental consequences for human lives, especially those in the lesser developed countries. Do we slash CO2 emissions, thereby condemning the populations of these countries to short life expectancy, high infant mortality, and a woeful lack of sanitation indefinitely? This human factor must be considered as well. We advocate responsible journalism. We are in favor of articles which increase public awareness of environmental issues. But we insist that instead of pandering to emotionalism, future articles report and analyze scientific facts in their proper context. The UCAR sidebar presents a careful case describing the trends and nothing more; Burns' "pat predictions" in the long run serve only to undermine the efforts of scientists to enlighten the public with defensible data and reasonable conclusions. --James Head David E. Trilling Elisabetta Pierazzo UA Dept. Planetary Sciences Mark T. Lemmon UA Lunar and Planetary Laboratory Editor's note: Well, pardon us stupid layfolk for offending the finely honed sensibilities of the ruling priesthood, but if the "scientific" consensus is correct, as you point out, "in concluding greenhouse warming will be unprovable until it is too late to counter effectively," then our descendants, at least, will be up shit creek without a spacesuit. God forbid that anyone gets upset by such a scenario. As for Mr. Burns' predictions, at least he's on the record, and at least he's trying to warn of the potential dangers in a way most folks will understand, instead of worrying about what Rush Limbaugh will say and dithering over whether, if present anthropogenic trends continue, the big heat will occur next year or next century. Please continue your research--it's important, even though it appears it won't do anybody much good, since, by your own apparent admission, the issue may be decided in the atmosphere long before we get around to acting. But with the scientific consensus leaning however timidly toward a greenhouse effect that could possibly exterminate life as we know it on this planet, we feel Mr. Burns, as an expression of that life, has a teensy little right to state his concerns, however emotional and unchic in your highly educated view. As to your contention that limiting CO2 emissions will visit unlimited evils upon those in lesser-developed countries, hell, let 'em all drive Buicks. In about 50 years it won't matter to us anyway. You people are worth every penny we taxpayers are shelling out. Who cares what future taxpayers may think, or even whether there'll be any--at least you're not rocking the old boat today. Cents Of Confusion To the Editor, "Pennies For Our Thoughts" was a funny editorial (Tucson Weekly, March 14). A. Bradley Dongas III should throw one in more often. Having been born in Tucson, I find his jibes needling and useful. Keep it up. --J.G. Borden To the Editor, I was surprised that you had covered the Tucson Weekly building with shiny copper pennies rather than those shiny, slick Joe Camel inserts that The Weekly littered the streets of Tucson with a few weeks ago ("Pennies For Our Thoughts," Tucson Weekly, March 14). I guess we won't be reading much more about the tobacco industry in your publication. --M.B. Thompson We Want Letters! Thrilled by our brilliant insights? Sick of our mean-spirited attacks? Need to make something perfectly clear? Write: tucsonweekly@tucsonweekly.com

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth