Letters to the Editor: Hit the Ground Running Or Simply Running Blind?
Hit the Ground Running Or Simply Run Blind?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Today the Richmond City Council will vote on the mayor's only choice for chief accounting officer (CAO), Byron C. Marshall.
There is some controversy around Marshall's degree from Syracuse University, a terminated contract in Durham, and consulting work done for Austin, Texas, while he was CAO in Atlanta. He resigned as Atlanta's CAO related to that controversy.
Currently, an audit of Marshall's nonprofit group is being conduct in Austin with results due in October. Yet, the City Council is in a hurry to vote to confirm him without the customary committee review. "That's the start of the fiscal year," said Council President Kathy Graziano, "We'd like to hit the ground running."
"The city can't go without a CAO for another three months," says Councilman Bruce Tyler.
Councilman Martin Jewell is upset with the media that have "called into question Marshall's credentials, his experience, and all else."
Maybe with good reason. Time will tell. Let's extend the search for candidates, vet them thoroughly, including Marshall, and audit results if a better candidate is not found before October.
Better not to hit the ground running only to fall on our faces.
Carol Buckingham.
Richmond.
Not Cheap or Painless, But Climate Needs Fixing
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Recent correspondents have pointed out some of the questions, alternative explanations, and misconceptions about anthropogenic climate change. So why do the majority of scientists (see the official policy statements of the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Association, and the American Physical Society) warn of the dangers of man's contribution to the global climate? Some would have us believe the worst: that they are in it for personal gain or duped by a few who will benefit. The truth is that they have looked at the scientific evidence and found it compelling.
The mechanism of anthropogenic climate change is based on the greenhouse effect: a well-accepted phenomenon whereby gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane trap some of the sun's energy warming the atmosphere. Simple models of the greenhouse effect such as the one described in the 1989 Scientific American article, "The Changing Climate," clearly demonstrate that changing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause temperature changes. While these models oversimplify the problem, the physical phenomenon is real. Better models include the effects of aerosols, clouds, the oceans, etc., and come closer to the observed changes. However, it is not possible to develop a completely accurate model.
So while the effect of CO2
on the climate is real, the models used to predict how much CO 2 is too much will always be estimates. This leaves open the possibility that the models are in error. So we have a choice: We could keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. However, the majority of scientists looking at the data and theories recognize the likelihood that man can affect the climate. They believe that while it won't be cheap or painless. anthropogenic climate change is a significant issue that must be addressed.
David Kane.
Richmond.
Where Did Augustine Get His Information?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In Bill Humphrey's recent letter, "Theories Aren't Bare Facts," he explained the difference between facts and theories. However, when he quotes the writings of St. Augustine as understanding the Bible as an unscientific document and knowing that God's creation would continue to evolve, I wondered how Augustine viewed the six days of creation.
The first day light and darkness were created. No evolution in that 24-hour period. Day two, the division of the waters by the firmament took only one day -- again, no evolution. The third day, the land and oceans were created, also the grass, herbs, and fruit trees came into being. The fourth day saw the creation of sun, moon, and stars to give light to the Earth. On the fifth day whales and every living creature of the oceans and every winged creature of the air was created. Also, the animal world came into being on that day. The sixth day, God made humanity in His own image to have dominion over everything that He created.
Augustine is quoted as writing that the universe was brought into being less than fully formed but able to transform itself in conformity with God's will.
Where in the Genesis account is there even a hint of the universe transforming itself? Unless I'm missing something of the six days of creation, I can only marvel at the miraculous events as written.
The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Roman Christians: "Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearachable are His judgments and His ways past finding out."
Sidney Preston.
Keysville.
Is Biomass Energy Another Boondoggle?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: After reading Curt Gleeson's op/ed, "Biomass Energy Holds Great Promise for Virginia," I have a couple of questions:
- Since wood and biomass are composed mostly of carbon, how is burning them any better than burning coal or oil? They both produce CO and CO2.
- If we have no manufacturing facilities, who is going to use the heat?
- Why would we support using productive farm land to produce fuel for electric production? I see another ethanol boondoggle where the taxpayers are paying for uneconomical, subsidized production that cannot be used unless one buys a new vehicle that gets 20 to 30 percent less miles per gallon than a conventional engine (not my numbers, these are from the EPA -- but I digress).
Biomass left in the forests and fields after harvesting rejuvenates the forests and the fields and promotes new growth -- natural fertilizer.
So, once again, why is this a good idea? Henry C. (Hank) Marshall. Mechanicsville.
Reader Reactions
Mr. Kane-Anthropological CO2 global warming/climate change/climate crisis/climate catastrophe/deteriorating atmosphere is a solution in search of a problem.
The genesis of the global warming theory goes back to Roger Revella and David Keeling.
The Keeling Curve is the double helix of the hypothesis.
The Curve originally set out to prove the rise of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. This it appears to have done. However, a correlation between the rise of this trace gas has never been proven to effect either temperature or climate.
After the pollution problems of the 60’s were greatly reduced by new fuel formulations and standards and smoke stack scrubbers did the same for power plants and factories the focus turned to the new CO2 hypothesis being reported by Revelle and Keeling. (reportedly Revelle had a change of heart and wrote some letters to Congress before he died warning them of any headlong rush into legislation dealing with this relatively new “science)
But with huge amounts of grant money and the blessing of the UN and IPCC (google Maurice Strong) an environmental cult was born.
Scientists of every discipline wanted to be in on the WINNING side of the movement.
Fast forward.
Al Gore (who was impressed by Revelle’s work in his days at harvard) looking for a vehicle to revive a fading career dying career, produced his deceitful film and scared a global population to death.
Declared the global debate over and proceeded to plant the seeds to become the first global warming billionaire.
To this day too many people’s only information on the subject comes from that movie.
The most recent media mini blitz on the EPA’s deception in suppressing a report to congress and the public is no surprise to those of who have been skeptics for years.
It is the tip of the iceberg.
And the notion that we have to “do something” to prevent a mythical “catastrophe” is one that is being perpetrated by scientists that know better but are not prepared to be a ostracized by their peers by voicing a dissenting opinion. And global government officials who envision their nations as “leading” the world in renewable energy innovations.
Prestige and money is what drives the movement.
The climate moves itself, just like always.
Spot on Dave. Demonstrating cause and effect in controlled conditions and demonstrating cause and effect in the real world are entirely different. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and more importantly, water vapor, which has by far the biggest effect. Without accounting for natural warming and proper modeling of feedback effects, long term projections of CO2 effects are meaningless. Why have temperatures remained level or declined since the late 1990’s despite rising CO2 levels. Does this inspire confidence in the models.
Check out these sites that present temperatures inferred from ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. What is the correct temperature we should maintain?
Is it really necessary to upend our entire energy economy when humans account for 3.5% of CO2 emissions? Further, is it necessary to give all of these handouts in a 1500 page bill?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01climate.html
“studebaker - there are not two different accounts of creation in Genesis. The second is but a synopsis of the first. It is a common literary device used in Hebrew literature.”Posted by ( Henry’s Ghost )
HG:
Not quite a synopsis in its contemporary sense: a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of a subject; or as in this particular case an abstract, or an abridgment. In the New Testament the three Synoptic Gospels do not agree completely, as you probably know; and are meant to be read or “seen together”—synoptic.
The creation story of Genesis 2:1-25 is not a summary or condensed retelling of the same story in Genesis 1:1-Genesis 2:3. Each account gives different information that cannot be reconciled with the other. Perhaps this apparent dissonance is a literary device to encourage the reader to think, ask questions, to seek a deeper meaning.
But you are right; the bible is a grand work of literature, filled with brilliant literary convention. Genesis is not a polemic against evolution to be used as a counter to climate science and so on. Genesis is a great saga of redemption that provokes thought with nearly every verse—brimming with wisdom.
Mr. Kane, you admit that measures being proposed to ‘fix’ climate change may be heavy-handed and even counter-productive, but you nevertheless defend these measures because we have to ‘do something’. You cite studies showing the climate is changing and then jump immediately to the conclusion that it is entirely anthropogenic. What’s the connection other than wishful thinking? You say a majority of scientists ‘recognize the likelihood’ of connection, but that is not the same thing as actually finding such a connection. That’s not science. How many of those scientists finding such a ‘likelihood’ are getting their bread buttered by interests who need a ‘scientific’ reason for increasing anthropogenic control not only over the climate, but over people’s lives? Perhaps, one should receive ‘instruction’ from other government anthropogenic initiatives. Do you like how it has sabotaged the economy? Do you like how it has allowed health care to become nearly untenable? Do you like how they have created a social security system that will be insolvent within a generation? Do you like how they have mortgaged the future of this nation to keep themselves in office? DO YOU REALLY WANT THESE SAME PEOPLE ‘fixing’ THE CLIMATE?
Carol Buckingham offers sound and prudent advice regarding tonight’s vote on confirmation of Byron C. Marshall as Richmond’s Chief Administrative Officer. As I have opined previously on numerous occasions, there are too many credible “red flags” about Marshall’s performance in his current and previous posts, and Council owes City Taxpayers the duty of rejecting the appointment or postponing it until a thorough vetting can occur and facts disclosed verified. There need be no rush, a perfectly capable and qualified employees have been more than satisfactorily performing the CAO’s job as the Interim CAO for months, and nothing that requires attention by the CAO is being left unattended.
Further, like Doug Wilder before him, Mayor Dwight Jones is building an empire by means of hiring numerous assistance CAO’s at a time when Richmond lacks money necessary to immediately comply with government-mandated orders related to ADA compliance in our Schools, deficiencies in our sewer system, and critical road and utility upgrades and maintenance are being left undone.
studebaker - there are not two different accounts of creation in Genesis. The second is but a synopsis of the first. It is a common literary device used in Hebrew literature.
“Since wood and biomass are composed mostly of carbon, how is burning them any better than burning coal or oil? They both produce CO and CO2.”
Good question.
As I understand it, the carbon in wood & biomass are part of a current carbon cycle. The carbon in a freshly cut tree is likely to come partly from exhalations of animals in recent centuries. During its lifespan the three has absorbed carbon and produced breathable oxygen.
Most fossil fuels, I believe, come from decomposed plant & animal matter that is many millions of years old. I think scientists are able to determine fossil fuel carbon by the increasing presence of certain carbon isotopes C12, C13, or C14, which seem to persist in the atmosphere.
It’s hard to get a good feel for the upshot of this issue since so much misinformation & “teaching the controversy” going on.
There are 2 completely different accounts of Creation in Genesis. May be God expects us to be smart enough to realize there is a deeper meaning here that a rote accounting.
Genesis 1
Day 1: Light. 1:3
“Let there be light,“ and there was light… and He separated the light from the darkness…And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Day 2: Separate waters above from waters below to make the “sky.” 1:6-8
And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.“ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse “sky.“ And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Day 3: Gather the waters below into one place to make “land” & “sea” and let the land produce vegetation. 1:9-13
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.“ And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,“ and the gathered waters he called “seas.“ Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.“ And it was so…And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Day 4: MORE light. Making the Sun & Moon to separate day & night. 1:14-19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night…”And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Day 5: Fish in the Sea & Birds in the Sky. Gen 1:20-23
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.“…and there was morning—the fifth day.
Day 6: 1:26-31 Livestock, wild animals & man. (male & female humans created together at once)
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.“ And it was so….
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.“ …God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Day 7: Completion Genesis 2:1&2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in their entire vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
Second version of Creation.
God creates the Man first, Plants & animals next, and the Woman last by Adam’s Rib.
2:4-9
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground…
2:15-22
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.“ The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.“
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Sir,
Will the editors’ of the Times Dispatch please enter into the 21st Century?
Evolution is the basis of modern biology. Modern drug therapy and biotechnology is based on evolution. Science accepted evolution decades ago, I believe it is time for this paper to move on.
How can Richmond hope to attract cutting edge business and technology firms to the area when an asinine debate regarding evolution continues to be held on the editorial page? Perhaps we should have a round table discussing whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement