Clouds and sun
66°
Clouds and sun
Hi 66° | Lo 42°

Letter: Like the Flat Earth Society

Wow! I’m disappointed that the Monitor would publish Michael Sununu’s Aug. 24 column, “Beware climate catastrophe charlatans.”

Given the super-debunked nature of his arguments, especially those attacking forecasting models, this was equivalent to publishing a letter from the Flat Earth Society. Sununu is guilty of just what he accuses others: selling snake oil. For example, just because one can’t predict the temperature of any given January day, it doesn’t mean that one can’t predict that it will be warmer six months later. So it is with climate change: easy!

If this is an example of Sununu’s consulting firm’s ability to do strategic analysis, I hope that potential clients will reconsider.

ROGER SHAMEL

Hillsboro

Legacy Comments19

The Global Warmers like All Gore are the Flat Earthers that require group think to and fudged data to make their "Science." If it is hot is global warming if it is cold it is climate change.

Hey, Van, that's a very serious accusation you make, fudged data. Would you care to back it up with one concrete example other than the disproved University of East Anglia email non-scandal?

Disproved? I think covered up is the word fof East Anglia, the emails were very specific. The data did not match tha agenda and they were worried about it and willing to bury it.

Itsa, that is not the result of the inquiry - conducted by RESPONSIBLE people not members of the professional and hobbyist deniosphere. No coverup, no massaging data. Only unartfully worded concerns that the general public might misinterpret. No data was "buried," and there was no "agenda." The world is still waiting for a concrete example of "fudged data" as Van claimed.

Just to reiterate what gracchus posted: those hacked and stolen emails showed nothing of the sort. Which you would know had you visited actual climate science sites. Any and all claims of 'fudged data' or dishonesty by climate researchers at Hadley CRU were false, as 3 independent inquiries showed. Words and phrases from the emails were taken out of context, and presented in the most invidious light by deniers. If the thieves had really found a "smoking gun" showing dishonesty and fraud in climate science, and rampant conspiracy, as the far-right continues to allege, then they would have been found in the emails. But there was nothing to find. Instead, the deniers did what they always do: distort and lie, by selectively choosing their 'facts'. That they routinely resort to lies and distortions is why they find it to so easy to allege that others do the same. They can't imagine operating otherwise. But simply put, the scientific method assures integrity; fraudulent results are eventually uncovered, when they cannot be replicated. The deniosphere doesn't do science, because it knows there is no support for its claims.It can only resort to distorting and smearing the science and the scientists, in a well-financed effort to sow doubt and misunderstanding.

WOW...Van...you must be a real genius to see through Al Gore. So, tell me REAL GENIUS, which of the published climatologist and meteorologist has 'fudged' their data, and how did they do that?? By the way, REAL GENIUS, did you that Svante Arrhenius in 1896 warned that CO2 could lead to warming of our atmosphere?? So, he must have fudged his data, right??

Van, I would trust 95%+ scientific consensus over your sources. You imply they are corrupt, but 95%+ being corrupt is beyond believable. What really troubles me is the scientific community has largely come together from around the world and is warning us of what at worst-case could be a global catastrophe. Most rational minds would want to learn more rather than denigrate the scientists and messengers. Let's say the scientists are wrong and we reduced greenhouse gas emissions unnecessarily, we would still benefit from becoming less dependent on foreign fuels, wasting less fuel, and reducing our own air pollution and thus improving public and environmental health. Not a terrible outcome. Alternatively, if we ignore the scientists and they were right, the outcome could be more floods, severe storms, more species becoming extinct, and a good chance of a global pandemic of some sort. As a scientist, I am amazed people would rather pretend everything is great and criticize those that are trying to act.

"Global temperatures are not following “official” predictions, so those who used global warming for a political agenda try to defend the indefensible. This proves it is political because scientific method requires you admit your science is wrong, determine why, and if possible make adjustments." ......proof they have a political agenda is that they should cheer that the data proves the earth is on a cooling trend for the past decade

You clearly do not understand the scientific process so it's not worth my while trying to discuss it. And those that accuse researchers of getting rich off of this should take a look at how the oil industry is faring right now, and further how that industry is filling the coffers of some politicians for political favors. I don't see the scientists having anywhere near that kind of hand in the pockets politics going on.

EXCEPT: Your cut and paste, unattributed posting (likely NOT from a scientist) contains a faulty premise: the earth is not "on a cooling trend" for the past decade. For one, the deep oceans (700m) are absorbing more heat, and warming. Current surface temp trends still fall within the range of projections from the models--contrary to your "out of the deniosphere" claim. But keep those phony claims coming: remember the motto: "A carp per diem".

Superb summary of Sununu as seller of snake oil.

I felt the same way at first, and then I realized it was published on the Opinion page. I appreciate everybody's right to have their own opinion but what troubles me most is that Sununu's opinion is written in a way that implies his opinion is supported by sound science when in actuality only a small minority of scientists support his version of science. As a result, I consider the Sununu article as nothing more than propagandist garbage. I suggest the Monitor should run a counter-opinion article from someone who can document how the vast majority of expert scientists view the same "facts" presented by Sununu.

Well said...I agree

RedBird, you aren't going to find one unless their data is fudge and not statistically sound. The "Hockey Stick" graph: The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate). RedBird maybe you could get the laughing stock Michael Mann to go up against Sununu?

There is ample support for the findings of climate science with or without Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph. But however much the deniers might wish it were not so, research continues to roll in supporting the hockey stick reconstruction, and its underlying premise that the current warming is unprecedented in at least 1,000 years. "...a string of subsequent studies by a number of scientific groups from around the world have all yielded essentially the same result. Most recently, a paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience this week — co-authored by 78 experts from 60 scientific institutions from around the world — found yet another hockey stick. Their temperature reconstruction shows a slow slide into a future ice age ending abruptly with a sharp rise in temperatures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Recent global surface temperatures are probably the warmest in the past 1,400 years." http://www.livescience.com/29068-hockey-stick-climate.html "Two new studies bolstering the “hockey stick” hypothesis were published just recently. One that appeared this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters analyzed seashell deposits on the North Atlantic seafloor and determined that 20th-century warming in the region “had no equivalent during the last thousand years.” Another study, in The Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzed ice cores from glaciers in the eastern Bolivian Andes dating back to 400 A.D. “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1,600 years,” the researchers concluded." http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/?_r=0

Van...I wouldn't want to burst your bubble, but the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (if you bother to check it), actually CONFIRMS the 'hockey stick'. Of course, you probably made errors by using ALL available date, about 1.2 billion points; or that they erred by using 39,000 weather stations. Actually, BECAUSE they used so many stations and data points, their data does tend to be.....irrefutable. But, don't let that stop you from kibitzing about it.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.....CO AUTHOR....... now has this to say........ "Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’ " -

Gee RedBird, have you read the Monitor editorials or Katy Burns??? I guess that propagandist garbage is only on one side of the political spectrum??

Science should not be a political tool for either side. I consider propagandist garbage to be when an overwhelmingly agreed to scientific finding gets turned upside-down for political or monetary gain. I don't mind this article being tossed out there, but since it is so far out of the scientific near-consensus, I feel the Monitor should have balanced it out so readers do not confuse the author's opinion as fact.

Post a Comment

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