Sunday 20 Apr
 photo 85cca911-3826-446b-828b-785107dd2ef3_zpse09f07ac.jpg


OKG Newsletter

Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · ‘Mistaken...
Letters to the Editor

‘Mistaken environmentalists’

Mickey McVay September 14th, 2011

James Stovall (Letters, “Unprecedented crisis,” Aug. 3, Gazette) informs us that warm air “holds more water vapor than cold air.” Golly gee, now that would be real news, except that it is a long-known fact that steam is an excellent way to retain and transport water vapor and heat.

He belittles religion for explaining climatology, yet endorses the greenieweenie acceptance of pseudo-science to state that climate change is largely due to man.

Since the earth’s atmosphere is comprised of 95 percent water vapor, it stands to reason that the moist air will retain much of the heat generated by our sun. Carbon dioxide comprises 0.03 percent, yet mistaken environmentalists, in their “Chicken Little” fervor, want to blame it for global warming. Common sense reveals that this is a remote possibility.

Historical geology teaches us the earth has undergone many periods of warming and cooling, long before man was here.

Astronomy teaches us the sun goes through cycles of thermonuclear activity (sunspots) that sends more, or less, radiation and heat to planet earth. This is where the majority of the heat originates that greatly influences our planet’s temperature.

Who among you thinks man influences the sun?

—Mickey McVay

Oklahoma Gazette provides an open forum for the discussion of all points of view in its Letters to the Editor section. The Gazette reserves the right to edit letters for length and clarity. Letters can be mailed, faxed, emailed to or sent online at, but include a city of residence and contact number for verification.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


09.14.2011 at 04:55 Reply

Why is the Gazette publishing someone so utterly ignorant as to think that 95% of the atmosphere is water?  Okay, Steve Kern is constantly given space so we might as well give other ignorant people space too.

About 80% of the atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen and most of the rest is diatomic oxygen.

Water vapor is about 0.4% of the entire atmosphere and typically a handful of percent near the surface. 

Is McVay is so stupid as to think that climate scientists have not taken account that the atmosphere has water in it?  Hint: They have.

Is McVay so stupid as to think climate scientists have not taken into account the Sun?  Hint: We can directly measure its output.  Guess what, it is not responsible.  If anything the Sun has been on the cool side as of late.

And yes historical geology does show that climate can change without man.  But those changes had causes.  The cycles in Earth's orbit are largely responsible for the advance and decline of the glaciers during the Ice Ages (which we are technically still in).  Changes in the position of the continents affects climate dramatically.    The atmosphere over geologic time changes.  The Sun over geologic time has gotten hotter. 


09.14.2011 at 09:27

Michael, it is in Mickey’s interest that he maintain the myth that mankind has no impact on his environment because he is a self described Oily ( 

Engaging someone who clearly has a biased interest in maintaining an industry that feeds his own financial stability isn’t going to change his point of view.  So addressing him is going to be a wasted effort.  It’s best that we just highlight the fact that Mickey’s own interests are what he’d rather defend, and in doing so prove to the intelligent reader that he cannot address this matter from a standpoint of impartiality, no matter how much he wishes he could.

Michael, I am not privy to your level of knowledge, but I’d wager a bet that McVay’s level of education is about as great as my own.  Which, if that’s true, doesn’t give him much credit to speak on the subject with authority.  This dolt (me) has the common sense to type a short question into his Google machine and get more accurate answers than the one’s Mickey pulled out of his butt.  According to the Wikipedia page on “Atmosphere” ( the Earth’s atmosphere consists of an average of 1.247% water vapor, which is about 93.753% less than what he’d have us believe.  The rest is mostly nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide.

Mickey, if you want to make a point, I’m all for it, just do us a favor and try not to assume that we’re not going to double check your “facts”.  Also, you’re more than welcome to go on living your life blind to the inevitability that fossil fuels are not endless, but this “greenieweenie” is going to push for renewable sources right up till the day you’re sipping dry wells.  At which point, I think you’ll be surprised how quickly you see the error of your ways.  Though I imagine someone as stubborn as yourself would sooner blow his brains out than admit he was wrong.  Pride is a sin, you know that right?

Now, I’m going to go a bit off topic but I can’t help but wonder at what point an Oily will turn against the industry they love.  Since I began driving 16 years ago, I’ve witnessed a 350% increase in the cost of gas.  Assuming we don’t fall into a depression and this inflation continues, in another 20 years you could be looking at gas costing upwards of $12 per gallon.  Will Mickey still profess the purity this industry if/when this happens?  Do I need to point out that the 52 week peak for a barrel of crude oil was $114, at which point Oklahoman’s were paying about $3.70 per gallon.  Today the price of a barrel of oil is $90, which is 78.9% of that one year peak.  If the oil industry wasn’t a corrupt cabal of industry speculators and greed merchants like Mickey the respective price of gasoline should be approximately $2.92 per gallon.  Instead it’s 45 cents higher.  Which brings me to another question, has it ever occurred to Mickey that the collective strain of 7-8 years of steep fuel price increases would have anything to do with how our economies are slowly imploding?  Wouldn’t have anything to do with the myriad of families and business that no longer having disposable incomes thanks to their fuel expenses, would it?

I might be a greenieweenie, but I sure as hell can see the forest for the trees.  Mickey reminds of a child who shoves his finger in his ears and yells la-la-la when someone is giving disparaging news.  I’ve got other arguments for weaning the world off oil, but I imagine Mickey doesn’t want to hear it.


09.15.2011 at 06:46 Reply

Yeah.  But it is so damn frustrating.  I really do expect that authors to the Gazette have at least an eighth-grade knowledge of what they are writing about.  McVay does not.  The composition of the atmosphere really is middle school stuff.


Oh well, he is hardly alone:  Fox News recently had an "expert" who thought that the greenhouse effect was a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.  (Hello, ever notice how hot your car gets when parked outside in the summer.  If not visit Phoenix in the summer.)  An "expert" who did not understand the issues at a high-school level. :

This is to be expected with crank science.  It happens again and again.  And yet the ignorance that comes is often very shocking.



09.16.2011 at 09:00

What's scary is how people take what they hear on FOX news as gospel.  You are right, a lot of this is remedial science anyone with even a public school education would know.  Maybe this is the kind of crap they teach at those fancy private schools that teach creationism.  Do I dare point out that if dinosaurs and man roamed the earth side by side, what is the Biblical answer for what created oil?

Even if man made climate change is a myth, as I have pointed out, fossil fuels have an expiration date.  We must do what we can to preserve the remaining oil reserves for things we'll make with it.  Using it in our automobiles only more quickly diminishes something that needs to be a cherished resource.  Becuse as much as I don't want to admit it, we need oil.  Oil is a primary component in most pesticides and plastics.  If we didn't have pesticides we would have famine.  And while you can use plant based oils to produce plastic, it does not hold up as well over time.  Not to mention if we got to a point where we didn't have oil for pesticides, it would seem unlikely that we would use plant based oils for plastic production because that would limit food supplies which would be in short supply already from the lack of pesticides.

I seriously don't think McVay has ever weighed the consequences of how our society will exist in a post oil future.  So if global warming is a myth, that's fine that he believes that, but that must not certail the construction of a renewable infrastructure.


09.18.2011 at 07:30

Actually oil is not made from dinosaurs which is a bit of a myth.  (Okay, maybe a very, very tiny fraction was dinos.)  Of course your larger point would still stand: if the Earth is 6000 years old there has not been enough time to generate the stuff. 

Add another reason to worry even without warming: Most of the CO2 goes into the oceans where it is an acid.   The pH has been lowered which is not good for life in it.