Global warming, like other predictions deserves skepticism
To the editor:
A recent letter,”Global Warming: Evidence is tough to miss,” was a peculiar response to my earlier letter. It is a singularly distorted misrepresentation of what I wrote, replete with unsubstantiated assertions and seemingly obligatory ad hominem characterization of “complacent and cynical.”
My imperfect letter evidently did not convey the intended point that uncertainty and critical questioning are stalwart attributes in any field and especially in the new enterprise of climate.
Nowhere do I state that the claims of climate catastrophists are a hoax. I did call attention to an historical hoax (not myth) which was supported by the eminent scientists of the time. These worthies were proven wrong because they believed what they did not know and attacked those who challenged them.
Perhaps I ought to have referred to the “Continental Drift Theory” as an example, drawn from the early twentieth century. This proposition was also criticized by eminent scientists. Indeed, it is still reviewed and studied and is anything but “settled.” The climate catastrophists’ insistence that climate forecasts are “settled” is a point of departure. This new area of study is anything but settled and the prescriptive measures are premature, not indicative of complacency.
Few readers who are aware of the earth’s experience with ice ages will not acknowledge that the earth warmed. My letter does not deny this since I realize that, absent warming, we’d still be up to our ears in ice and snow. The writer refers to many unsubstantiated “facts” as evidence of warming. A genuine, not self-identified fact, promulgated by the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. is this: There has been no statistically significant global warming for more than 15 years. To be sure, local and regional experiences may give a different impression. Be mindful that the U.S. covers approximately 2 percent of the globe.
Further, there is no proof that humans influence climate in any significant way. That is the crux of the issue, not whether it is warmer now than 1,000 years ago. Related also is the fact that NOAA stated that Sandy was not “climate change” related. Immediate action, as advocated by the U.N. vis a vis climate change, is not required.
Finally, the Malthusian reference to population is similarly overstated. Few may recall the earlier “predictions” that the earth will not be capable of sustaining the population of the 1980′s. The sheer volume of erroneous “predictions” is sufficient to give anyone sound basis for skepticism, because no one knows, eminent scientist or not.
Joseph A. Matais
PortsmouthAdd to favorites