Rock attacks character instead of answering questions
In an attack on my character, Robert T. Rock has made some statements that are not only untrue but also insulting. (“Walker completely wrong about melting Arctic and CO2”)
Rock states; “John Walker seems to take much pride in his lack of knowledge with anything remotely dealing with science as attested to his mind boggling statement that the Arctic has few people so isn’t contributing to greenhouse gas”.
“Statements” I did NOT make, nor do I ever make, when dealing with the thorny issue of global warming. I always question claims made by scientists, and even that results in getting tagged as a “denier”. However, Robert T. Rock has taken my “questions” to a higher level.
In my letter I simply “asked” three “questions” relating to the Canadian Arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of Canada, and did NOT make any statement in that respect. Therefore, I have been misquoted. (For reference purpose, my letter was titled “Greenhouse effect Arctic Warming” “greenhouse effect theory or fact?)
The “questions” IF answered truthfully, would paint any global warming scientist into a corner, which Rock has chose to avoid. The “questions” were, if a greenhouse effect is a fact, is it a local or a global condition?
If he had answer that it was a global effect, he would have been unable to explain why the rest of Canada is not warming at the same rate as the Arctic. If he had answered that it was a local condition, he would have been unable to explain the unusual Arctic warming, because the Arctic is sparsely populated and has low CO2 output because of the lack of industry etc etc. compared to the rest of Canada,
To avoid falling into such a trap, he “changes gears” and suggests it is not CO2 that is causing the increase temperature, but methane gas being released from melting permafrost, Alaska, which borders on the Canadian Arctic and warmed by the same sun, has a much larger percent of permafrost than Russia and Canada combined. That being the case, only a relatively small area of the total of the Canadian Arctic has permafrost and one would deduce that release of methane must be very intense, in order to heat up the Arctic at twice the rate of the rest of Canada. (Hope no one is smoking in the area) God forbid that I should ask but IF his theory is correct, why is Alaska not warming at an even faster rate than the Canadian Arctic, as they have a lot more permafrost than Canada?
In my letter I “asked” the” question”, is there a possibility that the warming could be the result of natural sun radiation? At this point he seems to “go off the deep end” with insulting commentary: “He still peddles the debunked idea so loved by online trolls that it is just normal warming by the sun. How does any sane person respond without adjectives not allowed in community papers when such ignorance is repeated ad nauseam?”
Well Mr. Robert T. Rock, let me assure you I am not IGNORANT, as you suggest. You are acting as someone without an answer to my question because of your reaction. Having lived for six years in the Arctic, I can assure you I have experienced sun radiation first hand, and it sure as hell didn’t come from “trolling” the internet as you suggest.
My first hand experience of the intense sun radiation was in the summer months, as the sun circled high in the sky on a 24/7 basis. Somewhere in my possession I have a picture of my son and I, during the summer, in bathing suits, swimming in a dug out made by a bulldozer 200 miles inside the Arctic Circle. I didn’t know it at the time, but thanks to your recent “information”, I guess it was the methane gas that had heated the warm water, and had given both of us a “sun” burn, and NOT sun radiation! Incredible!
How DARE that I should “ask” if sun radiation is causing the Arctic heating! Especially so in summer months, under clear skies, with the sun circling high in the sky, radiating heat waves at the earth, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for a two month period. It is a known scientific FACT that sun’s intensity has increased in various parts of the earth from time to time for brief periods of time, which some scientist prefer to ignore. (USA – 1936)