Inhofe had answered one of my emails about my concern with the election results. It had angered me because he had to also informed me that "The populace also voted resoundingly for conservative family principles." Without changing the subject, my reply can be found in my blog. Since then I've not received any replies from any of over a hundred emails and letters. Mr. Istook, who was my favored representative, had helped with a problem of mine many years ago, who I had always voted for, except this last election, has answered not one of my emails or letters. Mr. Coburn has decided to reply to his letter mail only. But I do appreciate it. This is the third such correspondence I have received from him so far. They are late in their response, but it is a careful piece of work. I will share all the responses with you, but I am getting behind. But this one is close to my heart as it concerns the environment. There is nothing more important than the environment. When I was sixteen I worked in a Nature center. There was never a time in my life when I was closer to God. This people, is something, if you believe in God, you do NOT want to destroy or damage. Nature is the temple of God. We must respect it if we believe in God. Nature is God's artwork and signature, and how are we to understand God if we destroy it. Not meaning any disrespect, I will respond in portion.
quote:
TOM COBURN OKLAHOMA
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3604
April 11, 2005
Mr. Roger Harkness
------------------------
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73141------
Dear Mr. Harkness:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about global warming. As a father and grandfather, I too want to see my family inherit a clean, safe environment.
However, as a former member of the House Science Committee, I have serious reservations on the current state of global warming science. As an active member of that committee, I personally read through volumes of scientific reports, and it is not clear at all to me that our knowledge is sufficient to confirm many basic tenets of the global warming theory. According to confirmed temperature records, the surface temperature of the earth has risen by approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. Accurate records date back only to 1861. We therefore need to make sure that our actions are based on proven facts. Due to the lack of substantial evidence, variations in the temperature of the past century cannot be and have not been directly attributed to human activity.
So if you believe that because we really don't know, we should take inaction to our already taken action before any real investigation was ever made. So doing nothing is our chosen path.
quote:
Furthermore, there is serious division in the scientific community on the cause of current temperature trends. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, evidence of . natural variability is great enough to cast doubt on the global warming theory. Ice cores and other proxy data have shown a relatively stable global climate over the past 10,090 years. Many scientists have found it difficult to attribute beyond a reasonable doubt that any current warming of the climate is a result of the global warming theory. This is due in part to conflicting climactic data and the lack of long-term data.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at MIT, helped prepare a U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on global climate change. He explained that there are three basic statements that most scientists agree on when it comes to global warming:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor or clouds.)"
"But - and I cannot stress this enough - we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."
During the late 80s, I spent 6 Austral summers in Antarctica serving the Navy in support of the National Science Foundation. I was in a unique position to observe studies and scientific discussions concerning that big hole we have in the ozone layer that reapears each year. There was much discussion and dissagreement by most scientists involved concerning whether or not the ozone hole's enlargement was due to a natural reoccurrence or mankinds involvement. By a majority vote, it was decided that it was due to mankinds involvement. This all by itself, without the Greenhouse theory will have an effect on our future climate. It is strange that we don't hear about the Ozone hole any longer from our media. The Greenhouse theory is not new, nor was it created by the media, but is older than I am, and I am 46 on May 4th. Without us doing anything at all, the hole in the Ozone layer will contribute the Greenhouse Effect.
Why is MIT even consulted when we have the National Science Foundation which is a government agency? Very few of us today, even the most intelligent, do not live off the land. We depend upon a paycheck from a boss who may not see things as we do, from them, we receive our sustenance. A lot of money is riding on this Greenhouse theory, that is why we hear about it from the media. I have no doubt that a belief in money influences the opinions of many scientists. What is relevant to policy discussions? It is policy that we place, "In God We Trust" on our coins, yet science cannot prove that there is a God. It is obvious to me that science is not relevant to policy discussion. What should be relevant has existed since the time humankind have lived, "common sense," which seems to be going out the window these days.
quote:
The scientific data available is highly erratic. While it is true that over the past 20 years warming has occurred, the NAS reports "that temperature trends based on such short periods of record [20 years], with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long- term behavior of the climate system." As few as 30 years ago, scientists were citing evidence that we were in a global cooling trend that threatened to throw us into the next ice age. Obviously, those projections never came to pass. When trying to find a solution for such a potentially serious problem, we must not act on incomplete data, or short-term trends. Our actions must be based on substantial and refutable scientific evidence.
We should thank God that some scientists were incorrect in their calculations and that we are still alive. I like to believe that God is giving us more time. Let me repeat: "So if you believe that because we really don't know, we should take inaction to our already taken action before any real investigation was ever made. So doing nothing is our chosen path."
quote:
It is absolutely critical, that we be good stewards of our environment.
I could not agree more. The first order of business is clearly spelled out in Genesis when we are made the rulers of God's creation. I would hope we could be good stewards of God's creation. It is written that what God has made is good. No where that I know of is it said that what man has made is good. As a matter of fact, it was decided that the tower of Babel should be destroyed. I will hope that God does not see fit to do the same with man's current inventions. As I believe I am a man of a great deal of common sense; I believe it would be prudent to curtail the creations of man whenever they conflict with the creations of God. I believe my common sense is fairly good and doesn't require the advice of a scientist. Though I do understand that this may not be the most profitable thing to do. But I am confident we are followers of God and not Mammon, because our money states such.
quote:
I am eager to review the President's Clear Skies Initiative in the coming months, and am hopeful that it will promote a healthy debate and understanding of the problems that we face.
From the Sierra Club:
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp If you're an honest man, you will admit that the Clear Skies Initiative is nothing more than act of hypocrisy. You take current government regulations, regulating pollution output and combine them together and undercut them, and label it "The Clear Skies Initiative," what is that?
quote:
As your Senator, I will continue to monitor all available science. We can and must protect our environment. It is critical, though, that our policies be formed on sound science, and not on well intentioned but unsupported premises.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office in the future, if we can be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
~~
Tom Coburn
United States Senator
TC: tf
Though there are numerous scientists and scientific organizations around the world who will back me up on this idea that we need to curtail our own creations to protect the earth and ourselves, I would also ask that you ask God for wisdom on this one. As I do not believe that our current administration is acting wisely in governing our natural resources.
This reply is being sent to Mr. Coburn and is being shared on the internet as well. http://okcitykid.bravejournal.com/entry/12267
My Posts
64yrs • M • 
