By Ronald Bacon, San Juan Capistrano

If our elected city leaders wish to join you in making a cause out of anthropogenic climate change, then they can do so after either being voted out of office or simply resigning, thus maintaining a separation between state and religion. There is a significant difference between arguing that humans “contribute” to climate change and stating that human activity actually drives the changes being reported. As I read the literature, the question of whether or not humans are the driving force in climate change is unproven and unsupported by the latest evidence. We can all agree that taking care of our surroundings and environment is good and responsible, and I am glad to join you in that effort. The aspiration of “banning fossil-fueled vehicles by 2025” is one of religious zealotry and not science. You would be far more believable and effective if you were advocating for nuclear energy, given that it is far more effective in cost and space than solar or wind for energy generation and is entirely clean in its emissions into the atmosphere. Opposition to nuclear energy generation is based on unfounded fears and outdated technology and could use support of those fearing an “eight-year” opportunity window to address energy emission levels.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (3)

  • Mr. Bacon states that “As I read the literature, the question of whether or not humans are the driving force in climate change is unproven and unsupported by the latest evidence.” What literature?

    Have you read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (Oct. 2018), or the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 4th National Climate Assessment (Nov 2018), or for that matter, any peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject?

    The authors of these landmark IPCC and USGCRP reports say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to prevent humanity from exceeding the 1.5°C target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5°Cand 2°C. Failure will significantly worsen the risk of drought, floods, extreme heat, and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

    Are you aware that the global human population at the beginning of the Industrial Age (1750 C.E.) was about 700 million? Today we number about 7.76 billion. In other words, our population grew by 7.06 billion in 270 years.

    Are you aware that prior to the arrival of the Industrial Age, atmospheric CO2 remained stable at 280 ± 10 parts per million (ppm) for more than 800,000 years? On February 17, 2020, atmospheric CO2 reached 413.85 ppm, an increase of 133.85 ± 10 ppm in only 270 years. The result has been planetary warming at an alarming rate. In the past, before humans arrived, a change of 133.85 ± 10 ppm occurred over millions of years, not 270 years.

    You go on to say, “The aspiration of “banning fossil-fueled vehicles by 2025” is one of religious zealotry and not science.” You obviously don’t know your history, do you? It’s all about science and the political will to change.

    If you recall, the Japanese attacked us on December 7, 1941. Over the next 60 days, we transitioned our industry from civilian to military production, and the military mission was effectively completed on August 9, 1945, with the dropping of the second atom bomb on Nagasaki, less than five years later. The official surrender of Imperial Japan was announced by Japanese Emperor Hirohito on August 15 and formally signed on September 2, 1945, bringing the hostilities of World War II to a close.

    We, of course, had the political will to bring about the changes needed to win the war. We also believed in science back then.

  • Wow that is a lot of science you are spouting. So i looked it up and you are right on in what you are showing us. And where did the religion thing come from did he pick that out of the air because he does not understand science? Or is he just one of those people who fell asleep in school grammar or high school he couldn’t have gone to college no way. Not someone so ignorant not to even understand basic science.
    Oh well not to worry. He will expire quickly because he will not believe anyone at all that he cant breath the air outside because it is too polluted it will kill you. Because he dont believe in Science.
    I wonder why he dont believe in Science? Is it because he was scarred by a Science Book? Or afraid to learn? What I really wonder what it might be.
    And he is anti religious too? Not good for and election. Oh Well that is his problem. Our problem is simply this. We need to leave our country and our children with breathable air, drinkable water, and soil without poison in it. Poison that will kill them. And while we are at it we really need an ocean we can swim in and sail on. Not a floating garbage dump.
    No I say i will stick with the scientist who have been dealing with these problems for many many years.
    And Mr. Anti Science, Religion, children, and actually people. Which he is suppose to be, but may not be.
    Good night…

  • Mr. Bacon confuses science with religion and with policy. Science is based on facts, and the scientific literature (not just any literature) shows clearly that CO2 released by human activities has increased the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans. One way to lower the release of CO2 would be to restrict cars that burn gasoline, but while science supports that conclusion, it will have to be introduced through policy decisions by individuals, cities, state or federal governments. Get involved: learn the facts, read the real literature, then go after the policies you worry about.

comments (3)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>