Action needed to avoid reaching tipping point

All the climate scientists make the point that, because of feedback mechanisms, climate change can reach a "tipping point" when it will be no longer possible for us to reverse warming, no matter what.

Based on that, we should take no chances that we ever reach the tipping point.

Market forces can do well when change is slow and gradual. But to avoid the tipping point, scientists tell us we need an 80 percent reduction in carbon burning by 2020 -- just 12 years from now -- and there's no way the market can change that much that quickly.

We must have strong government action to force this very rapid reduction in carbon output.

-- David Matthews, River Falls

Don't mess with nature's complexity

In the 1900s, a Serbian academic named Milutin Milankovitch developed a profound interest in climatology, especially the causes of "ice ages."

As Earth moves through space spinning on its axis, it is not just subject to variations in the length and shape of its orbit, but also the angle of orientation to the sun. Its tilt, pitch and wobble all affect the length and intensity of sunlight falling on any patch of land. It wasn't until the 1970s and the refinement of a method of dating ancient sea floor sediments that his theories were vindicated.

The fact is our planet is between ice ages, a period known as an "interglacial." It is unnerving to reflect that the whole of meaningful human history has taken place within an atypical patch of fair weather. We are very lucky, it appears, to get any good weather at all.

It is a blessing that our planet has the capability of retaining greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is the necessary element for plant photosynthesis

Considering the complexity of our planet, I don't believe that global warming is a threat that requires strong regulatory measures to reduce man's impact on the environment.

-- Donald M. Forkner, Fitchburg

Make the debate accessible to public

I'm as informed as anyone who bothers to read both sides of the global warming debate, and the June 22 Forum columns did well. I hear people comment on global warming headlines with information acquired from TV. In my bookstore, I try to bring that debate to others than the oft-preached-to choir.

Here are some ideas for taking the debate to those who complain that the scientifically literate on both sides did nothing they could get behind.

We are not prepared for heating oil shortages caused by interrupted shipping, either by terrorists or a mini-ice age like 500 years ago that blocked harbors and caused starvation.

Our infrastructure is not ready for high water, whether from rising sea levels due to man-made warming or from floods caused by naturally changing jet streams.

We failed to take a protective approach to the future of our children's children when we were not sure of the outcome, despite past data.

And people driving an SUV to an alternative energy fair is silly, especially when the alternatives are already available at car dealers, at the light switch, at the warm sweater store and at the thermostat.

-- Daniel T. Miller, Richland Center

Science still debating man-made warming

We must differentiate between the terms "global warming" and "climate change" to have a meaningful debate. There is no doubt that the earth's climate changes over time, but the real point of discussion is whether man-made carbon dioxide plays any significant role.

There are many experts who disagree with the notion that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have any significant impact on climate change, citing evidence that the Earth's climate follows solar cycles rather than the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Some speculate that carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than being a cause of it.

Regarding the predictive ability of long-range global warming computer models, the late Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the UW-Madison Department of Meteorology, asked "Do you believe a five-day forecast?"

We must return the climate change debate to rational and open scientific inquiry. The media and political hysteria related to man-made "global warming" must be exposed for what it is -- radical environmental dogma masquerading as science.

-- Ralph Peters Jr., Fort Atkinson

We all share blame for our predicament

If you like shoveling, pumping sewage out of your basement, sandbagging, worrying about dam breaks, and sweating out wildfires -- all in the same year and all in excess -- enjoy yourself. Excess precipitation is part of the global warming package, and it will keep increasing. As you savor the moment, thank:

* Alliant chief Bill Harvey and Alliant Energy for proposing an inefficient coal-fired power plant in Cassville.

* Detroit for building gas guzzlers until its last gasp.

* Congress and the president for selling out to energy interests.

* The Wisconsin Legislature for selling out to utility lobbyists.

* Yourself for not slowing to less than 70 mph on the interstate or adjusting your thermostat, changing your light bulbs to more efficient ones or generally lifting a finger to save energy.

Consider taking a stand against global warming in your own household and insist that your elected representatives do likewise in Madison and Washington.

-- Robert H. Owen Jr., Middleton

States must lead way to limit emissions

As a retired mental health worker who's been educating myself about global warming, I've attended many meetings of the Governor's Task Force on Global Warming. It's crucial for government to intervene and set standards on carbon emissions that are non-negotiable.

This kind of leadership should have come from Washington, but in its absence, it's important for states to begin the process immediately. The experience of the states that try to develop plans will be useful in helping to shape a national policy once we have a new administration.

It makes good business sense to end our fossil fuel dependence and develop sustainable manufacturing processes, energy production and construction practices. If there was less urgency, we could wait for "market forces" to solve the problem without government action. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of waiting.

Our Wisconsin government must act, and help create a groundswell of action that can't be ignored by Washington.

-- Karen Stevenson, Madison

Regarding food, cure is worse than disease

Amid the rhetoric and fear over the theoretical man-made global warming, what do leading climatologists say?

Based on my readings, many say global warming is either nonexistent or at best naturally occurring and therefore something we cannot effectively address with lower emissions, carbon credits and so on.

Is the cure worse than the disease? Our current overreaction has severely impacted not only our economic situation but the world food supply, and America has historically provided massive support of this kind to underprivileged nations.

When it comes to addressing an unproven theory, we need to look at the proven effects of the policies. Reducing our economic prowess has far-reaching effects. Creating world starvation and economic hardship so we can "feel better" about our environmental impact is not a fair trade-off.

Of course we should treat the planet properly, because God instructed us to -- not because of some radical scare tactic.

-- Brad Chapiewsky, Madison