Phil Gingerella’s letter to the editor, “A challenge to global-warming alarmists” in The Westerly Sun on Saturday, Sept. 15, is silly. What is the challenge? We should research parts of an agreement to find something that differs with what he has read. Why? To prove he can read? I never suggested that he cannot read. Nor do I recall anyone who has. I and others often point out that he cannot reason. Also, his sources lack credibility. Mr. Gingerella often proves our point as he did with this letter.
With the usual muddled shotgun approach, he scorns reasonable people with opposing views. He misstates, exaggerates, and liberally sprinkles alternative facts. Somewhere he stumbles on what I will charitably call a main point. His letter does have a second-grade show-and-tell flavor, like a twitter-in-chief message. (I have a fact here, my own fact, as in that Puerto Rico is an island surrounded by big water.) He pretends to reveal a new fact of which we are not aware.
The Paris Agreement works this way. Developed countries, like the United States, pledged to use less fossil fuel. Less-developed countries like China and India pledged to decrease growth of fossil-fuels usage. Growth in use will continue but they will reduce the point at which it peaks. Mr. Gingerella would have known this had he paid attention to arguments leading to the Paris Agreement. It would not have come to him as a new revelation. Which industry, government, and technical papers does he read? The press gave this wide coverage. China and India argued they needed to expand fossil fuels’ usage to develop. Without expanding carbon-fuels usage, they could not. Developed countries conceded this point. Therefore, developed nations set goals to reduce fossil-fuels use and developing nations agreed to goals to reduce growth of use.
World leaders designed the Paris Agreement to encourage countries to reduce fossil fuels usage. They did not use force. Paris Agreement signers set goals for reducing carbon use outright or by reducing the rate of expansion. By most news accounts, China and India will exceed their goals. They will build fewer plants that use fossil fuels. They exceeded the challenge. They also have huge investments and are world leaders in renewable energy. Though some experts think it is too little, too late, the Paris Agreement is working. Mr. Gingerella should take another peek at the Paris Agreement and its history. He needs to rethink his peak theory because it makes no sense.
Mr. Gingerella has expressed impatience with scientific projections. He asks why global warming has not put the Maldives Islands under water yet. Well, it may take longer. Most of those islands are only 3 feet above sea level with some as high as 8 feet. Should the islands suffer a storm like Hurricane Florence or Sandy, what then? Look closer to home. I wonder what Mr. Gingerella thinks of the Watch Hill Yacht Club raising its building 15 feet. That is 7 feet higher than the highest point on the Maldives Islands. The islands cannot move, and neither can the residents of earth, should we make it unlivable.
I would not consider Mr. Gingerella fool’s wager. If I did, I would not give to the NRA. After all, the NRA gets huge sums of money from Russia. Why would it need $50 from me?
Joseph C. SciarilloWesterly