READER FEEDBACK

Readers are checking out Heat Treat Today’s magazine, and the January 2025 Technologies To Watch print edition has a piece that sparked comments from readers. The letter from publisher Doug Glenn entitled “What If We’re Wrong About CO₂ & Global Warming?“ challenges the “assumption that global warming, and specifically man-induced global warming, is a real and settled science.“

Would you like to weigh in on the topic? Submit your question, comments, thoughts, or queries here or email Bethany Leone at editor@heattreattoday.com.

---

Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s page:

“I’d like to challenge that assumption. Firstly, legacy media, the federal government, academia, and the scientists who deliver the science we’re called to follow — i.e. “follow the science” — are all strong proponents of man-made global warming and the evil of CO₂. This grouping of authorities, in and of itself, causes many to be suspicious, given this group’s historic record of dishonesty and deception. If this group has been so wrong in the past on macro-social economic issues (e.g., Covid) would it not be reasonable to question their claims about climate change?

Secondly, the science doesn’t seem to be as settled as claimed.”

---

This publisher’s page prompted this feedback from loyal reader Roger Hird of W.H. Kay Company:

“Thank you for your column in the recent HTT issue.  As a longtime climate skeptic, articles like yours are exactly what’s needed to push back on continued efforts to use climate change as a tool for massive government interference in all phases of life.

Sadly, the EU is much further down the road in their Climate zealotry, and we’re reading how these efforts are even pushing some European landowners to close down their farms to avoid crippling penalties in the decree of decarbonization. 

This past election puts the proverbial ‘finger back in the dike’ of climate-based government intrusion in our economy and daily lives, and thank God for that! 

Keep up the great work Doug.” 

Doug’s reply:

“The well-meaning folks in our government will continually find ways of expanding their scope and power. Let’s assume 90% of them mean well. The fact is, the government should NOT be in 90% of the stuff they’re currently in. It is our responsibility to reign them in, politely if possible.

Keep fighting the good fight when and where you’re able. The publisher’s page is one place I’ve been blessed to use in my little corner of the world.  Not everyone agrees, but that’s the way it ought to be.”

From reader Kevin O’Brien, Birmingham, Michigan:

“Quick note to thank you for your editorial. Yes, agree on the idea that we are re-shaping and re-orienting too many aspects of our economy and society because there is an agenda being pushed by a group. Even more so when you consider that many of the people pushing the agenda stand to gain from massive government spending in this arena. All too often, the environmental ‘movement’ seems to be acting on and reacting to published material that seems more like the flavor of the month rather than solid, steady scientific findings…. The result is that large numbers of people experience a negative outcome (higher prices, more regulations) with no means for redress.”

Doug’s reply:

“Very much agree with your assessment of ‘flavor of the month.’ My content is that we should trust the market and not well-meaning individuals in positions of power to determine the direction of the world’s environmental movement. If everyone in the world were genuinely concerned about global warming, they would demonstrate that sincere concern by spending money in that direction. That in turn would encourage companies to follow the consumer’s lead. We don’t have enough faith in the market … or as Adam Smith would say, the Invisible Hand!”

From reader Steve Maus:

“I have followed this issue with great interest for decades, and so I am familiar with the work and comments of the prominent figures you have referenced. My studies toward a metallurgical engineering degree included significant coursework in organic chemistry and thermodynamics, and in my career, I’ve done extensive hands-on work with CO₂ and its many reactions. With that in mind, I tend to agree with the skeptics because the chemistry simply does not support the claims of those who predict catastrophic global effects due to small changes in atmospheric CO₂.

It seems to me that our industry ought to encourage frank debate of the issue, and that we should demand that it be based on a critical look at the entire chain of generating process heating, and on the genuine effects of CO₂ emissions.  Simply moving the generation of CO₂ away from the point of natural gas-based heating and transferring it to the source of generating electricity with fossil fuels or ‘renewable’ sources that have issues of their own or using fuels that require electric power to generate them, is not accurately addressing the situation.  Otherwise, it appears to be a situation of doing something just to do something, for reasons that may not well-considered.  And as we have seen with other attempts like EVs, solar panels and wind turbines, the solutions often come with problems of their own, so we ought to learn the lessons and apply them here.

But I digress. Doug, I applaud you for raising the question, and I look forward to the healthy discussions that will be provoked by it.”

Doug’s reply:

“Thanks for the encouragement, Steve. I hope you’re doing well. By the way, if you haven’t read the article I referenced from The Epoch Times, I highly recommend it. If what they are saying in that article is true (regarding ‘saturation’ of CO₂), then the whole issue becomes moot … IMHO! It is worth the read.”

From reader Dean Keal of IGE Fans:

“I think you are spot on.  Aside from all the science debunking this, history has shown the planet has been warmer in the past than it is currently. Heck, in the medieval warming period, the Vikings were grain farmers on Greenland. I think this whole fiasco is about power and control, not science. Unfortunately, there are so many people making money from this issue it has become entrenched. Perhaps President Trump will interject some common sense.”

Doug’s reply:

“Thanks, Dean. Appreciate the encouraging words. Not everyone agrees, but most everyone that has taken the time to respond has been respectful and MOSTLY in agreement. There was one who vehemently disagreed but we’re still on speaking terms!”

We welcome your inquiries to and feedback on Heat Treat Today articles. Submit your questions/comments to editor@heattreattoday.com.

Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com