Goodbye Rudy Baum

    I have read Rudy Baum's editorials in the September 10th and September 17 issues of Chemical and Engineering News. The September 10 issue editorial is entitled, "Once More on Climate Change". It is a two-column editorial of about equal length for each column. The first column covers primarily global temperature changes in modern times. I cannot refute any of the temperature data which he indicates, but I can refute his speculation that this has been caused by the activities of mankind. An example of the fallacy of his position, is that he makes no mention of the fact that during dinosaur times, the world was apparently considerably warmer, possibly warmer than at present, and this had followed one of the previous ice ages.
    In the second column, Rudy objects to some readers insisting that he should have spent more time during his editorial career on chemistry, the chemical industry, and the weak job situation. He finds it difficult to understand that attitude, because he considers climate disruption as the greatest challenge facing humanity today. He quotes a couple of people who have addressed an ACS National Meeting and a Presidential Symposium, and who have apparently agreed with his emotion. This does not necessarily make it correct.
    I do not dispute the fact that climate changes significantly over hundreds of years, with less noticeable annual changes year to year. But, I do dispute the notion that mankind has had a significant contribution in that change. My basic objection is to the thought of climate change enthusiasts that increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for global warming. Similar to the "Flat Earth" theory of the Middle Ages, no one seems interested in investigating its legitimacy.
    Just for starters, let's consider two facts. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very low and therefore likely to have little effect. Secondly, thermal resistivity of various gases have been measured, and it has been found that the resistivity of carbon dioxide to heat transmission is not significantly higher than that for oxygen and nitrogen, the major components of the atmosphere. In addition, minor gases in the atmosphere have resistivities to the passage of heat at levels higher than that of carbon dioxide.
    With all of the federal money being dumped into the universities on grants, is it unreasonable to expect that we can get on with some real scientific work in either confirming or disputing the last of the previous two facts?
    Contrary to Rudy Baum's opinion, I see no basis for mankind to attempt control of climate. If control freaks want to control something, why not start with controlling weather? With floods and droughts and significant areas of arid land in the US, weather control would be a real asset. Conversely, control of climate is expected to be significantly more difficult, especially if we find the carbon dioxide effect on global warming to be unrealistic.
        Rudy's editorial of September 17 requires considerably less comment.
    That editorial is basically his "Swan song". He reviews the professional aspects of his editorial life and "makes nice" with his appreciation for the cooperation of his staff and bosses. They may be sorry to see him leave, but I am not.
    I believe Rudy has done considerable damage to this country through use of C&E News in promoting big government and promoting the carbon dioxide/global warming hypothesis.