L/rain
47°
L/rain
Hi 50° | Lo 43°

Letter: Misleading assertions on climate change

Re “Evidence of climate change never more compelling” (Monitor letter, Jan. 20):

Shannon E. Mills is right to take columnist Bob Washburn to task for his simplistic assertions about climate. However, her explanation of Washburn’s mistakes are in themselves misleading.

Mills writes, “The scientific evidence for climate change has never been more compelling.” True, but so what? The only constant about climate is change. It changes all the time. Next she writes, “Scientists agree that the global climate is warming and that it is associated with increases in carbon dioxide generated by human activity.”

The 1.4-degree warming of the past century has probably been caused to some extent by human-generated CO2. But how much of the temperature rise is human-caused and how much is natural is unknown. Even more uncertain is the future effect of continuing CO2 rise. The confidence expressed by Mills that recent extreme cold is a consequence of global warming is also unjustified.

A similar weather phenomenon occurred in December 1962 when Miami experienced 10-degree weather while global cooling was under way.

Mills encourages readers to draw their own conclusions about climate change based on science. Good idea. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that the effect of global warming is “a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks in Northern Hemisphere winter in most areas,” the opposite of Mills’s claims.

TOM HARRIS

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

(The writer is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition.)

Legacy Comments55

Readers should ask themselves this question..... with the release this week of the joint NOAA and NASA data along with the RSS satellite data and the soon to come UK Met Office’s record (which is the oldest continuous temperature record in existence) that undeniably prove once and for all that there has been no statistical significant warming from ZERO for almost 2 DECADES....... why then are the GLOBULL WARMING ALARMISTS not celebrating that FACT ? The deniers are in fact the globull warming alarmists as the data ( their own data ) totally refutes their religion. Post 7 of 12 on 1/26

They are not celebrating any "fact" that stands in the way of their politically charged weapon called Climate Change. They don't like oil or corporations or what they call consumerism. They know in their own brains what is good for everyone and any tool they can use to control behavior, movement or economics of the population, they will defend it to the end.

The poster's claim is false. Read here to see why:http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that the effect of global warming is “a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks in Northern Hemisphere winter in most areas..."...Yeah...not this year..Interesting to note too, this year, lake Wicwas completely froze over Nov 30th....VERY early according to the old timers and way way ahead of the polar vortex...what that means is anyones guess.

My first response to Harris included the rest of that statement from the IPCC, which he neglected to include :"Exceptions could occur in areas with the smallest reductions of extreme cold in western North America, the North Atlantic and southern Europe and Asia due to atmospheric circulation changes." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html

This pathetic farce known as "global warming" rebranded as "climate change" has gone on quite long enough. Polar ice is cyclic just like every other condition is cyclic on decade + scales and it is a shame that responsible adults have to keep the civilization going despite the childish fantasies of a few cranks who could not admit that their hoax was a hoax in a million years. I will not criticize anybody's religion but when they start calling their religion "science" I will stomp all over it.

CORRECTION: the globull warming Alarmists are now pushing their 3rd iteration called "CLIMATE DISRUPTION"

Mr. Harris, I offer my compliments on most of your letter, but I respectfully disagree with your premise that “The scientific evidence for climate change has never been more compelling.”. I ask you to please read Professor Judith Curry's recent testimony to the US Senate:

People can easily post things from both sides of the debate here as they do. Some post 1000+ words and it gets lost, it just reinforces that side of the debate. I guess that the question begs that if all of the hysteria is real and the science is "settled", what should we do next. What is the impact on our economy, our lifestyle, our prosperity and what measurements will be used and if it proves that we can't impact climate, then what? China and India will not follow suit, individuals can do what they can to do their part but we can't throw our economy into a tailspin to address something that is so politically charged and agenda driven. What addressing this according to the hysterics comes down to controlling human behavior, freedom of movement, freedoms of all kinds to address something that we may not be able to impact. We aren't even addressing people riding around in pickup trucks (including Toyota trucks) with low cafe standards. Many of these folks are the ones pontificating about climate change. Hypocrites all.

Perhaps I should be flattered by the attention. One of my vehicles is indeed a Toyota p.u. My other vehicle, BTW, is a Prius. It is worth bearing in mind that the comment above comes from the same poster who justifies hiding behind a nom de plume out of fear of intimidation or threats. Yet this is not the first time he has casually dropped a reference indicating a perhaps unseemly interest in my personal affairs.

Don't be too flattered, I see no less than 6 of those trucks around Concord with wacko bumper stickers on them, had nothing to do with you. Paranoid much? My point was that people are hypocrites like he Vermont Volvo going by you like you are standing still, with a "save the planet" bumper sticker. Toyota pickups seem to be very prevalent among the globull warming enthusiasts around the capital, I laugh every time I see one and some environmental bumper sticker is on the vehicle. Please don't accuse me unless you have proof. BTW, Toyota trucks are prevalent but even the big trucks are as well. PS-I drove a Honda Civic Hybrid for 2 years, then I read on article on the environmental impact (overall) of hybrid cars and all of them have more negative impact on the environment than the benefit that they provide.

And you are wrong on the environmental impact of hybrids. The carbon footprint of a well-used Prius, and most if not all the other hybrids is at least one-third smaller than a regular internal combustion car.

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage www.impactlab.net/2007/03/14/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage/

I know the feeling . . . it's happened to me. And the poster who did it resides in this very thread.

Well, I hope you are not accusing me.

This letter from Tom Harris is a tricky dickey. First he is for it and then he is agin it. Any organization with the words 'international' and "scientists" in its' title sounds quite impressive. Except of course it is just a group of climate change deniers. That this man, the head of a foundation from Canada, found a letter in a small local paper in NH and decided to rebut it sounds strange to me. Wonder who is behind it?

We deny that we are climate change deniers. We are denial deniers. Climate changes all the time and we should help people adapt.

Don Farley, Gatineau, Quebec 01/25/2014 In response to Bruce Currie: NASA reports that the current solar activity cycle is the lowest in 100 years, and may signal a future low period for the sun, probably not unlike the one that caused the Little Ice Age from the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries. I am sure that Lake Champlain had continuous ice cover every year during this period from November to June. Mathew Penn of the National Solar Observatory says the strength of magnetic field in sunspots is waning, and the sun spot cycle may disappear altogether. “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum.,” he said. CO2 has not traditionaly been an indicator of climate warming. It has usually followed warming periods in the geological record. Sun spot activity has been correlated by mainly Danish scientists to temperature change. In 2001 ago I attended, as an uninvited guest, an IPCC meeting in Ottawa reporting on 24 mathematical model simulations carried out by different researchers from about 6 countries. I was appalled when the chairman of the meeting said that his team compared the individual model results, and then rejected the 4 highest and 4 lowest predictions as outliers, before taking the mean of the remaining 16. In hindsight, all the results should have been rejected. They all drastically over-predicted mean temperatures for 2000 to 2015. Models based mainly on CO2 as a driver are doomed to failure.

Your understanding of the role of CO2 is not accurate. CO2 is both a feedback response to warming and then a driver of warming. See this video by Penn State's Richard Alley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

As for solar influence, the sun has been in a cooling phase for more than 3 decades, yet the climate has warmed significantly. This does more than suggest that the sun's influence is being oversold by those who are looking for any explanation other than the real one for global warming. For more on the science, as opposed to the nonsense, see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm Or here, at the Berkeley Earth site where it states "Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend." http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

So what is your answer, Bruce. Do you want everyone to live a life of minimalism, or $7.00 per gallon gas or the government telling people how to live. Based on the global warming hysteria, the only way we could possibly impact this according to your extremists is to completely change our lifestyle, economics, etc. That is not going to happen as India and China will not follow suit. So what is the answer if indeed (not likely) that this so called science is true. If not, we would be doing it all on a hunch.

We were labeled as deniers by the GREEN ZOMBIE CULTS but the real deniers are now the zombies, i have been researching this human cased global warming science fiction for fifteen years. My information comes from credible climate scientists, not Al Gore and Suzuki, they and the rest of the Green zombie groups are nothing but alarmists paid for by uninformed billionaires and people who stand to gain from the alarmism. A short history of climate change starts about 800 years ago when we were in the medieval warming period, that could not have been caused by humans, 500 years ago we were in a mini ice age. We are now in the 3rd cooling cycle since 1875, in the 1930's we were in a warming cycle, in the seventies we were in a cooling cycle when the media was writing about possible ice age, and in the nineties we were in a warming cycle. The sun has an eleven year cycle of increased sun spot activity and reduced sun spot activity, these cycles correlate with all of the past warming and cooling cycles. We are about ten years into this current cooling cycle, and the sun has been at its lowest sun spot activity for longer than usual in the past 100 yrs. As for carbon dioxide it is not a pollutant it is plant food and is essential for life on the planet, more of it is beneficial. I suggest the people who believe the AGW science fiction do some real climate science research or take Professor Tim Patterson's Climate science 101 at Carlton University in Ottawa.

Good article, Mr. Harris, but I respectfully suggest that you are very wrong in accepting the premise that “The scientific evidence for climate change has never been more compelling.” Please read Dr. Judith Curry's recent testimony to the US Senate: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275

Judith Curry's statement leaves out some things that might weaken her claims. She says nothing about the fact that Arctic ice is disappearing 3 times faster than Antarctic ice is expanding. Nor does she mention that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass. She also says very little about the increased warming of the oceans that has been detected, and which would account for some of the "missing" warming that deniers seem ever so quick to point out. Nor does she mention a new study by Cowtan and Way that includes more of the warming in the Arctic (where warming is, as predicted by the models, increasing most rapidly) and therefore also accounts for some of the "missing" heat deniers are so fond of claiming. If you read Curry, you should also read Andrew Dessler's testimony, here: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=26edecac-2c6f-4f8e-ab90-962a7d074d06

'The National Snow and Ice Data Center report that 2013 was above average in sea ice extent — a record, for the satellite era, with the largest winter extent as well as the highest summer minimum. This is on top of a small but increasing trend, 1–4%, in Antarctic sea ice.'

The temperature change has been largely based upon corrupt data from poorly located meteorological stations at airports and urbanised settings that have falsely recorded warming due to culture. Rural stations show no such story. Moreover, the demise of the USSR took a large number of stations from northern latitudes out of the estimate. None of the model predictions have come close to the actual natural warming or cooling. Looks to me and many others like classic academic 'garbage in garbage out'. A computer model that does not hindcast or forecast should be discarded and must always yield to experimental science. None of them seem to work.

Not true. The land surface temperature record is accurate, as confirmed by the Berkeley Earth Climate study: "Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results." http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings The Berkeley Earth Climate study set out specifically to examine this claim, which first made its appearance in the climate blog WUWT, and where it persists to this day--despite the findings of this study by a distinguished panel of scientists. The Berkeley Earth study was funded in part by "skeptics"--the Koch Brothers for instance, who had hoped it would confirm their assertions. For what it's worth, WUWT had also said it would abide by the findings of the study, until its results were published, that is. The study's findings crushed the blog's only real claim to fame, that temp readings were biased by the urban heat island effect. The poster's claim about the accuracy of the models is also untrue. While the models can't predict events like volcanic eruptions or the exact timing of shifts in El Nino/ Pacific Decadal Oscillations that influence year-to-year variability, their accuracy over the longer term is very good.

Massive Hypocrisy ! above Bruce demonized Judith Curry and here he he boasts a study of which she is CO-Author - which is it Bruce she is right or wrong....OR..... as a Globull warming alarmist will tell you both Hot and Cold are caused by globull warming. Never trust a single thing a globull warming Alarmist posts without massive fact checking

Response to the Bruce excuse of the day #203 - Judith Curry (a co-author of the Berkeley Study) has roundly criticized Richard Muller of the Berkeley team. "As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.".... "There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate." Those are direct quotes from a co-author of the report that Bruce uses as a source. Always check an Alarmists claims. post 3 of 12 on 1/26

Curry feels she was taken advantage of by a journalist, David Rose of the Daily Mail, from which the sensationalized quotes above are taken. From her blog: "However, please understand that my statement to Rose was about the plot with the 10 year running mean ending in 2006 being misleading. It is misleading. There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998. This is being widely discussed, see the greenwire article for various opinions on this." Note she clearly says it a SLOWING of the INCREASE in the warming. She has NOT said that the warming has stopped, when she plainly could have, and so given confirmation of the Rose piece. http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1 http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#comment-130046 In another post on her blog she writes of her meeting with Richard Muller, the lead author of the BEST study: "Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous. " http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540 Two points to make about this last statement from Curry: She doesn't dispute that the 'land data' for the past decade shows a "continued increase", AND that determining a trend of any kind is difficult. In fact, ten years is too short an interval for any kind of trend to emerge. One lesson here is that any cut-n-paste claims sourced from the poster above should be taken with a grain of salt--a very large grain of salt, and then corroborated (rarely) or found to be misleading/false (usually) with other, reliable sources. In this case, Judith Curry herself.

SO VERY TRUE Artesian: HEADLINES - "NOAA closes 600 ‘hot’ weather stations." Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S.prove the books are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate. WARNING to the readers - never ever trust a globull warming alarmist.

There's an organized anti-science public relations effort, part of a larger misinformation campaign with a budget of about $900million/year. It began with a smear campaign against epidemiologists fifty years ago, in retaliation for their discovery that cigarettes cause cancer. It moved on to toxicology when that science showed lead in gasoline and paint was hurting people. Now it targets climate science. (For a resent research paper on it, google "Brulle pdf institutionalizing delay".) "International Climate Science Coalition" is part of that PR project. Take what ICSC's public relations agent says with an appropriate grain of salt. Then educate yourself on the science. Start with Wikipedia, or a textbook at your local library. When you hear one of the PR operation's slogans, such as "It's been warm before" or "there's no evidence the warming is manmade", look it up at Skepticalscience.com and see what the science says. Scientific knowledge will immunize you from the smear campaign's lies.

The “shoot the messenger” strategy reflects the zero-tolerance tyranny behind all crusades seeking mass behaviour control imposition(s) typically justified on “the science” that requires trumping the Scientific Method which invites skepticism, as well as ignoring the first rule of toxicology; The dose makes the poison. Consider why Canada's former Minister of Health & Welfare gave the title Science versus Health Promotion to Chapter 9 of his 1974 A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians a working document, then ponder these excerpts: The spirit of enquiry and skepticism, and particularly the Scientific Method, so essential to research, are, however, a problem in health promotion. The reason for this is that science is full of “ifs”, “buts”, and “maybes” while messages designed to influence the public must be loud, clear and unequivocal, … The scientific “yes, but” is essential to research but for modifying the behaviour of the population it sometimes produces the “uncertain sound” that is all the excuse needed by many to cultivate and tolerate an environment and lifestyle that is hazardous to health.

I have reported the message from MisterScience since it violates the Concord Monitor's discussion guidelines which state, }you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive". Specifically, we are not part of any other PR project and the anti-science campaign MisterScience accuses us of being part of was unknown to me until I read his comment. I think the problem may be MisterScience's reliance on Wikipedia, a highly flawed source on this subject, I have found, and one impervious to correction (I have tried, but they always revert to the previous mistakes). He is right to say, "Scientific knowledge will immunize you from the smear campaign's lies." So ICSC encourages people to educate themselves about the science and make up their own minds as to what is correct (and what is simply unknown) on the climate science issue.

lol...let me know how that works out for you...next time you will know not to waste your time

Tom Harris' response to the Mills letter omits a significant sentence contained in the 4th IPCC report concerning future periods of extremely cold weather in North America. Here is the full text: "In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. The European heat wave of 2003 is an example of the type of extreme heat event lasting from several days to over a week that is likely to become more common in a warmer future climate. A related aspect of temperature extremes is that there is likely to be a decrease in the daily (diurnal) temperature range in most regions. It is also likely that a warmer future climate would have fewer frost days (i.e., nights where the temperature dips below freezing). Growing season length is related to number of frost days, and has been projected to increase as climate warms. There is likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks (i.e., periods of extreme cold lasting from several days to over a week) in NH winter in most areas. Exceptions could occur in areas with the smallest reductions of extreme cold in western North America, the North Atlantic and southern Europe and Asia due to atmospheric circulation changes." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html "Atmospheric circulation changes" are precisely what is giving us a 2nd bout of Arctic air this winter. Harris also refers to the 1960s, when "global cooling was underway." That "global cooling" was really climate variability within a longer trend of warming. Look at the trend for New England winters: "Over the last 100 years, winter (December to February) temperatures show the greatest seasonal rate of warming (2.8o F). Even more striking is the 4.4oF increase in winter temperatures over the last 30 years (1970-2000). This is equivalent to a shift in wintertime climate from Boston to Washington, D.C." Consider Lake Champlain: "Today the lake freezes over 8 days later than it did in the second half of the 1800s. But the most remarkable part of the record is the occurrence of years in which the lake did not freeze over all winter. Over the 186 year record, the lake has not frozen over in 31 winters, and almost half of them occurred since 1970. Ice-out and ice-in dates recorded in the Northeast are consistent with the warming trend evident in the annual and winter temperature records over the past 100 years."www.climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/I.2Indicators.pdf Despite its reasonable-sounding name, and the seeming reasonableness of his letter, the organization which Harris leads has long denied any link between fossil CO2 and global warming, has in the past received funding from the Heartland Institute, and has worked closely with other denier organizations to spread misinformation on the issue of climate change.

Same theme, same diatribe, different day. Bruce please keep posting these, you are preaching to the choir. It is convincing no one. I just have one question, what exactly are the things you expect individuals and the government to do? Are you interested in minimizing our existence or increasing cafe standards on vehicles. Are you interested in going cold turkey off of coal and oil or getting those companies to invest in alternatie energy? Give us your plan for a change instead of long diatribes where you constantly try to convince people that you are right.

quoting the IPCC is a joke - right? "Head of the UN Climate Panel Pachauri admits purpose of the UN IPCC report it to make the case that 'action is needed on climate change' ….. Pachauri admits the IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments: 'We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.'" - to quote the IPCC as an authority on anything is an insult to the common sense of every reader.

Don Farley, Gatineau, Quebec 01/25/2014 In response to Bruce Currie: NASA reports that the current solar activity cycle is the lowest in 100 years, and may signal a future low period for the sun, probably not unlike the one that caused the Little Ice Age from the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries. I am sure that Lake Champlain had continuous ice cover every year during this period from November to June. Mathew Penn of the National Solar Observatory says the strength of magnetic field in sunspots is waning, and the sun spot cycle may disappear altogether. “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum.,” he said. CO2 has not traditionaly been an indicator of climate warming. It has usually followed warming periods in the geological record. Sun spot activity has been correlated by mainly Danish scientists to temperature change. In 2001 ago I attended, as an uninvited guest, an IPCC meeting in Ottawa reporting on 24 mathematical model simulations carried out by different researchers from about 6 countries. I was appalled when the chairman of the meeting said that his team compared the individual model results, and then rejected the 4 highest and 4 lowest predictions as outliers, before taking the mean of the remaining 16. In hindsight, all the results should have been rejected. They all drastically over-predicted mean temperatures for 2000 to 2015. Models based mainly on CO2 as a driver are doomed to failure.

Bruce_Currie is wrong to assert, "the organization which Harris leads has long denied any link between fossil CO2 and global warming" We have never made that claim. We simply say that we do support the increasingly improbably hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing, or likely in the foreseeable future to cause, dangerous global warming and other deleterious climate change. The Heartland funding charge is irrelevant. It comes from documents stolen from Heartland that showed that they made a donation to ICSC in 2007. That was before I was even with ICSC and I do not have the records to see if the charge is even true. But, as I say, it is irrelevant since there s no chance funding from 7 years ago could influence what our scientists tell the public. If we told them what to say based on a dono'rs wishes, they would immediately quit our group, anyways. Finally, you accuse us of spreading misinformation. I know of no cases of ICSC doing that. Can you give examples to support your charge?

I doubt that he can give original thoughts to support his charges. He can copy and paste things which he probably does not understand himself. We need to realize that at the end of the day, the climate change agenda is more about control of people, society and choices then it is about actual climate change. Those stolen Heartland documents could be forged, you can't trust these folks, we already know that in the East Anglia incidents that they are playing politics.

Mr. Harris writes: "…you accuse us of spreading misinformation. I know of no cases of ICSC doing that. Can you give examples to support your charge? " There are many such examples. Here are a few examples of misinformation spread by the ICSC, its director, and two of its advisory board members. First, the ICSC touted the release of a report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) last year, just ahead of the IPCC release of its new report. The report makes many simplistic and unqualified claims such as "CO2 is the gas of life, the more CO2, the more life". This claim fails to note that there are limiting factors to plant growth besides CO2 and that some plants may not thrive in higher levels of CO2. And that an increased level of CO2 is a pollutant that contributes to ocean acidification, which is harmful to ocean life. That same press release made no mention of the fact the report was funded and published by the Heartland Institute. In 2012, Heartland sponsored its famous "Unabomber billboard" comparing those who support the theory of AGW to terrorists. One of the ICSC's founders and lead science advisors, Bob Carter, famous for attributing warming to ocean currents, never disavowed this billboard, and participated in Heartland's "Climate Science" convention days after the billboard came down. Another member of the ISCS advisory board,David Bellamy wrote in a letter to New Scientist in 2005 falsely claiming that "555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich have been growing since 1980." When this claim was reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, they responded that the claim was "total bull****". The ICSC website touts Mr Harris' expertise on climate science--Heartland cities him as one of their go-to guys: http://heartland.org/tom-harris . The ICSC site also notes that Harris taught several semesters of a climate change course at Carleton University in Ottawa, "Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective" but fails to note that the course he taught was judged by an independent review to be replete with errors of fact--142 errors of fact, by their count. Chris Hassall, one of the team that wrote the report said. "To look through some of the claims and to find that he was spinning those things as either a scientific debate, or muddying the waters on the extent of the consensus in scientific literature, or providing theories that really lacked empirical evidence – it happened time and time again and we document it extensively." http://scientificskepticism.ca/sites/default/files/pressreleases/CASSREPORTClimateChangeDenialintheClassroom.pdf http://www.skepticalscience.com/tom-harris-carleton-university-climate-misinformation-class.html

Your post is full of suppositions and innuendos repleat with guilt by association and questionable reference links with an agenda.

Excellent letter but I fear that the extremists and the climate ideologues will come along and criticize the "facts" and start quoting things and copying and pasting information that they neither really understand nor can comprehend. This is political and ideological movement. It is about "controlling" the behavior of human beings through spreading hysteria in Chicken Little fashion. Were we not told that the Polar Bears would meet extinction and the seas would rise and flood New York and other costal cities 10 years ago and it would happen within the next couple of years? The "tipping point" argument is a hoax perpetuated by people who just want societal change. Great letter!

no, we weren't told those things. those are gross exaggerations of other very real warnings

sorry Peabody3000 - every single one of those false claims can be seen in ...... "An Inconvenient Truth".... the most widely watched globull warming alarmist propaganda on earth. Post 4 of 12 on 1/26

Sail is wrong again. " A UK High Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to stop the distribution of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to British schools. Justice Burton agreed that 'Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie." http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/11/an-error-is-not-the-same-thing/

I read the "blog" that you referred to. It stated that Gore's claims were in general not too over the top and that it would be shown in schools. However, the blog left this out from the court judgment: "The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes" In other words, it is "political" and being used by politicians and ideologues as a tool.

That's your skewed take on the judgement. The movie is in sum accurate, the errors it contains are minor and do not alter the film's major points. That was the judge's finding. The movie has always deserved to be shown widely, in schools and out, and does not need to be 'balanced' with any denier nonsense. It stands on its own as an accurate depiction of the science and the crisis we face. The fact the movie calls it a crisis is what makes it 'political' in your eyes. But the facts on climate change lead inescapably to that conclusion. There are no facts, and there is no theory, that offer a convincing counter-explanation to account for the warming. There is no alternative explanation for the warming, nor is there any basis for claiming that the warming has 'paused', halted, or that the planet is now cooling. What those who brought the court case in the UK. tried to do was squelch the truth. They failed. Ultimately, the truth prevails, as it will here.

this article expresses an oddly uninformed opinion. what makes this current climate change so much more dangerous and utterly different from previous temperature changes is the rapidity. in times past under natural conditions, global temps moved in a few tenths of a degree over a century. even a few tenths is significant. ice ages occurred due to drops of only a couple of degrees, which accumulated over centuries. now scientists predict that a whopping 6 degree uptick by end of century is possible. nature can tolerate any changes, given enough time, but to subject mother earth to a dramatic shift in less than a century is much faster than natural evolutionary mechanisms can keep up with

How have those scientist predictions worked so far? The answer is a unanimous = ZERO - this debunked juvenile so-called science was created just a few decades ago and has a horrible track record. As for temperatures....chew on this......"determining global temperature. Instruments changed over time, but continuous records are limited to the accuracy of early measures ±0.5°C. There are also the problems of the recording sites as Anthony Watt’s identified. Only 7.8 percent of the US record is accurate to less than 1°C. What does that say about the rest of the world?" - as a result.... NOAA closes 600 ‘hot’ weather stations..... This week the ALARMISTS tried to sell that a warming of 0.04 degrees FOUR ONE HUNDRETHS of a degree was significant........ only Hollywood could make up such fiction as globull warming. Post 3 of 12 allowed for 1/25

We have seen only a change of a few tenths (seven or eight tops) of a degree in the past century, hardly anything to be concerned about when you consider that we are in the midst of a recovery from the coldest period in the past thousand years. Would you rather live in Dickens' time? Some scientists predict the large warming you speak of. Some predict cooling. We do not know who is right. The science is too immature. Finally, look up rates of temp change to see the far larger rates of change at times in the past.

The BEST study documents 0.9 degree Celsius change in the past 50 years.http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

Are you aware that .9 degrees celsius = 33.62 degrees fahrenheit?

Your post would seem to be the result either of a reading comprehension error. 0.9 degrees Celsius is the measured amount by which the average surface temperature has increased in 50 years. It's not an increase taken starting from zero degrees C. and then adding .9 degree. Earth's global mean temperature is around 45 degrees F.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.