Here’s why climate change is a ‘heated’ topic

To the editor:

The Aug. 7 writer of “Why the debate on climate change?” says, “I am not an authority on climate change. I defer to those smarter than I who study the issue full time.” And: “I know this is a ‘heated’ topic but I am not sure why.”

Here are a couple reasons:

1. A 2012 Congressional Budget report estimated that your “power bill will go up about 75 percent if the proposed EPA restrictions on carbon dioxide are forced on the coal fired power plants.” As I stated in previous letters, these restrictions will do nothing to produce a significant change in global warming.

2. You cannot always accept a scientific statement just because the majority of scientists go along with it; some of those people will lean more toward research grant money and prestige rather than defending objective truth. Here’s a prime example:

As a subscriber to fanatically pro-evolution magazines (Scientific American, Science News and Science), I always find it amazing that there still is no plausible explanation on how simple dead chemicals combined and formed the simple one cell bacteria. One explanation in the Sept 2012 Scientific American, in which a guy said if he had 10,000 years to run an experiment he would have computer chips made to monitor hundreds of little wells attached to them, looking at different chemical combinations in each well to see if there is a runaway self-replication going on. Isn’t that kind of like Charlie Brown sitting in the patch, waiting for the “Great Pumpkin?”

What’s the problem? It’s just a dumb little bacteria like the ones residing in our gut. Is there a problem with that library of instructions residing in its DNA? – instructions approaching the same complexity level as on how to build a space shuttle. It’s a factory that makes another factory, like itself, in less than 30 minutes. Machines throughout the cell are performing a thousand operations at any one time. Some are extremely complicated, for instance ATP synthase which produces the chemical energy packets for other machines in the cell, has 40,000 parts (atoms), all of which have to be in the right place, for proper operation. This bustling city, with its central library of construction and maintenance information, is supposed to arise by itself from a pile of dead chemicals?

It seems to me that all living things were designed, and then given a toolbox with just the right amount of hardware and software to make adjustments to their “systems structure” in response to pressures from the surrounding environment, but not to do a total upgrade into some new species which would then produce a motley mix of transitional forms – which we should see happening today, but doesn’t seem to be currently happening.

In short, you don’t have be a molecular biologist to see the folly of macro-evolution. Likewise, you don’t have to be a climatologist to see that carbon dioxide released from America’s coal power plants becomes a “non-issue” when stacked up against Mother Nature’s massive CO2 recycling capabilities.

Phil Drietz