Reading your recent collection of letters on climate change ("Room for debate," Oct. 29), I wonder how useful such debates are. A businessman writes about the science behind climate change, and readers with no background in science respond. Is there anything to be learned from these amateurish exchanges?
My favorite contribution is the one that explains that the most significant source of carbon dioxide comes from decaying kelp. I have no idea whether that is true (one would have to believe some scientific study, wouldn't one?), but high-school science tells me it is irrelevant. Since decaying matter first captured the carbon and then releases it again, the net release is zero. The next generation of kelp will capture it again, then release it and so on.