 To the Point: Letters to the Editor Daily IssueAlert 1/15/2010 Free The series of IssueAlert articles around the United Nations Climate Change talks in Copenhagen (COP15) in December has produced an unusual number of responses on either side of the debate. We thought it would be of interest to our readership to share some of these responses in a “Letters to the Editor” edition. Clearly, this is an emotive issue with strong feelings on all sides that has energized our readers to put pen to paper and express their views. These responses show just how strong opinions are and just how divergent they are. Plainly, more debate around these issues is needed.
Gary M. Vasey,Ph.D.
Don't Think "Climate Change"—Just Think Change! December 12, 2009 Dr. Gary M. Vasey exuberantly claims, "It's easy to be skeptical; especially in the light of 'Climategate' and to lose sight of the big picture." But many of us believe Climategate has distorted the "big picture" because dishonest scientists fudged their research to produce the findings they desired, while discouraging open debate. It's one thing for members of a professional environmental organization--relying on public and government acceptance of politically correct viewpoints to produce its funding--to gloss over issues with claims, "If the science is wrong, then we will have achieved many good things anyway and if it is right-we may have saved the planet.” But what if society pours money down the rathole of politically correct but scientifically wrong solutions and then lacks the funds to address the real problems and solutions that are later discovered? I for one distrust magic bullets and Maginot Line defenses promoted by people who embrace dishonest research. Change simply for the sake of change is not necessarily progress. Sam Fletcher
COP15—Is it Based on Science or Politics? December 14, 2009 There are many reasons why the “debate is NOT over” and one that I find very interesting is the assumption that when two things correlate, albeit poorly, that the one causes the other. The stork population in England correlates pretty well with the birth rate in England, and that really isn't much of a surprise … they are both growing nicely over time. But, I hope I am not surprising your readers by a cruel fact: storks do not deliver babies. The second item here is one of correlation coefficient. I have taken the data from some of the scientific studies and looked at this in detail. The one I was most interested in was the “ice out” data which was a celebration in Iceland of when the ice left a certain place. There was a huge contest of guessing the date so detailed records were kept. The data did indicate a warming trend (ice out was occurring earlier over the past 70 years), but the correlation coefficient was 2% … almost no correlation. The stork situation has a correlation coefficient 25 times higher.
JOEL GILBERT, P.E.
Dr. Vasey notes that he is a trained scientist, but does not list his field of expertise. Does his background include studies that allow him to quantitatively evaluate meteorology and BioClimatology? I have a masters degree in BioClimatology, and I feel required to point out a few items about this article.
Paragraph 4: “the science is proven” In terms of political statements, the opening paragraph is not a scientific analysis of the “Climaegate” e-mail articles. The author cites that he read e-mails published on blogs sites and accepts the blogs set of data detailed are enough to conclude that the “pure approach of science has been totally overwhelmed and compromised.” In summary, I walked away from this article understanding that Dr. Vasey personally believes that decisions about COP15 are being made in a political manner that is frustrating to him, but the misguided use of his Ph.D. and science credentials to sway others is abhorrent.
Joseph E. Childs
You might like this one on Global Warming... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 This is an hour and 35 minute talk. Recent. If the facts stated are correct then there is no global warming. Temperatures dropping for last decade. I see a lot of skeptics but this is well presented.
Tom Sofka
General Feedback on the COP15 IssueAlert Series It has been a source of disappointment to me that the electric utility industry in its desire to have universal carbon limits so that they can plan for the future, have gone along with the discredited science as promulgated by IPCC. Instead of encouraging scientist such as Richard Lindzen of MIT to continue his efforts to show why the IPCC models are flawed because they do not account for a significant negative feedback that satellite measurements show to exist, they instead pushed for legislation to set carbon limits so that they could conduct their business without the uncertainty of what might be forthcoming. Thank you, Gary, for showing us that the king has no clothes. Ed Gulachenski
I am totally disgusted with the biased, self serving coverage of the Copenhagen conference which Dr. Vasey is sending you. Of course, it simply doesn't matter if the industrial engines of the United States are stilled (while waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to blow!). Who is going to feed the third world nations if we can't? I think the dollars these nations are hoping for will not be available. The U.S. is financially insolvent right now, and we have millions out of work, losing their homes. Sadly, all of this hysteria about global warming (and there is much science to dispute this) is based on a trace element of the atmosphere. I think the amount of CO2 emitted by human activities is something like 2% of the approximate 300 billion tons produced naturally. Sadly, for the doomsday people, this past year was very mild for cyclones and even for hurricanes hitting the United States. U. of Colorado's pictures of the ice in the Arctic do not look so bad either. Climate has been changing for millions of years. Anonymous
Mr. Vasey needs a dose of reality from "this side of the pond." Glenn Schleede
It must be hell for someone with scientific knowledge to cope with all of the proponents of global warming who base their opinions on "feelings" and subjective seat-of-the-pants "data." Reminds me of the only two things I learned from a college geology course many years ago: One was that the warming period since the last ice age is several years shorter than the warming periods between the advancements of ice during the ice age. The other is that the easiest way to distinguish salt from quartz is to lick both rock samples. Sam Fletcher
|
