The Sept. 22, “‘Leave climate change debate to the experts: writer says:

“It is true that roughly 3 percent of climate scientists still question the existence or extent of our carbon emissions’ impact, but who exactly are these people, and should their work be trusted?”

You cannot always accept an “expert’s” scientific statement just because the majority of scientists go along with it. Most of the research grant money from leftist philanthropists and the government is available only for scientists who will support global warming alarmism. Some scientists will lean more towards the money and prestige rather than defending objective truth. The Oct. 3 issue of Science News noted that Wikipedia gets up to 231 editing hits per day on global warming; more than any other science topic. This is definitely not “settled science.”

John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel said, “Scientists are afraid of speaking out against global warming because they’ll lose their grants. I’m not looking for grants.”

My Sept. 20 letter gave some basic reasons why the miniscule quantity of man-made CO2 cannot make a dent in the huge CO2 reserve owned by Mother Nature which is in a constant state of flux through absorption and emission in ever changing locales. Throw in water vapor, which constitutes about 95 percent of all greenhouse gas effect and you blow man-made CO2 into insignificance.

I would ask the author to go back to the sources he trusts and find out how man-made CO2, which represents about 0.0083 percent of the total gases in our atmosphere can even come close to pushing us into “Thermagedden.” Then publish those basic scientific principles and data in this forum.

Phil Drietz

Delhi, Minnesota