See? I’ve always said from since the time they started printing my letters than the NST has some global warming skeptics in their midst. See here for the most recent example.
From NST Letters 31 Dec 2009 (NST links become defunct after a while):
GLOBAL WARMING: Learn to coexist than take risks
CHEAH S. T., Penang
ASK any students about global warming and they will spout this mantra: increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) traps more heat, melts the ice caps, drowns ocean nations and causes widespread flooding, and desertification.
Sadly, no one seems to know that as a matter of fact, the greatest greenhouse gas (in terms of quantity of heat trapped by it) is actually water vapour (95 per cent), while CO2 only accounts for 3.6 per cent.
Of all the CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04 per cent), only three per cent is anthropogenic, that is, caused by human activities. Does it make sense that by cutting back on CO2 emissions by 50 per cent, we will stop global warming? The math just doesn’t add up and neither does the science.
But what about the real temperature increase recorded by meteorological stations? Most of these terrestrial (ground-based) stations are usually located in rural areas and set up perhaps 30 or more years ago. Since then, many would have seen surrounding areas deforested and urbanised, creating heat islands in which these stations faithfully record temperatures.
Near-ground temperature differentials between paved surfaces and vegetation covered surfaces frequently show disparities of between five and six degrees Celsius. These are just two of the areas where majority of climatologists feel that the global warming alarmists have got it wrong.
It is bewildering, to say the least, when a news flash of world leaders obsessed with stopping global warming in Copenhagen was juxtaposed against news videos of particularly severe winter conditions that have begun to wreak havoc on all means of transport across the northern hemisphere.
[Pic of dried out sands]
Perhaps global warming is just part of a natural cycle.
This is a timely reminder that we are after all still living at the tail end of an ice age and perhaps global warming is just part of a natural cycle, whereby Earth shakes off a chilly slumber.
In any case, plant and animal fossils recovered from the Arctic (for example, redwoods) and Sahara (for example, crocodiles) show that there were times when the Earth was much warmer and yet verdant, even at currently inhospitable locations.
Perhaps the most crucial questions are: should we attempt to manipulate global climate?; and can we even manipulate it?
It is exceedingly egoistical to be so presumptuous as to assume humankind can bend global climate to our will. We should be prudent and begin adapting to coexist within a warmer climate rather than take a risky gamble against even the remotest chance that ill-conceived attempts to move away from fossil fuels to alternative energy like nuclear power should go awry.
The consequences could be catastrophic and more menacing (as in the case of Chernobyl) than merely vanishing polar ice.
The polar ice is, of course, not melting away in the least (see Worldwide Weather section).