Dear Mr King (Online Editor of TheIndependent.com)
As a climate scientist I am writing personally to you as the online editor to strongly object to the blocking of my comments regarding the conversation by your science editor Mr Connor with Professor Dyson
. My comments sent last night were phrased in very reasonable and temperature language and highlighted the serious and very misleading mistakes given by Mr Connor.
It is simply wrongfor Mr Connor to say that present carbon dioxide levels are probably at their highest level for 800 000 years. In fact it is total nonsense. The Cambrian era had carbon levels 20 times what they are today and the Ordovician era which was mostly an ice age(yes an ice age!) had carbon dioxide levels 10 times todays level.( see the analysis by Professor C R Scotese Professor of Geology at the University of Texas www.scotese.com
I also pointed out that the IPCC climate models do not match up with actual temperature measurements obtained from the two main satellite data sources, UAH and RSS. For example the IPCC middle scenario for 2000-2010 gives a trend of 3.9celsius/century,but the actual temperature readings from satellites gives a trend of only 0.3celsius/century. The models of course are not actual temperatures, they are only "what if"scenarios.
I also pointed out that the residence time for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only about five years. A study of the Vostock Ice Cores over the last 500 years has revealed that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature with a gap of several hundred years.They are not the cause of temperature rises.The IPCC has also ignored the ocean bed volcanoes which emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the oceans, oceans which contain at least 60 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere.
Mr Connor also speaks about all these scientific institutions. The truth is that many of the scientific institutions he speaks of are in the control of a small management clique who do not represent the views of the members as is the case for example of the Institute of Physics. My colleague Dr Art Robinson in the US has collated the names of over 31 000 graduate scientists including 9000 PHds who all reject the man made climate change scenario.(www.petitionproject.com).
Popular Technology has collated 850 peer reviewed scientific papers rejecting human global warming. This compares with the last IPCC report in 2007 which had the grand total of 13 peer reviewed papers.
Is the Independent on a political crusade? It is high time that you started to report the facts, that human based carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses no climate threat and that the majority of graduate scientists do not accept this unproven theory regardless of what certain scientific institutions may say.
Incidently the latest poll of public opinion involving thousands of participants in the Scientific American reveals that 77 percent of respondents said climate change is driven by natural causes and 83 percent said the IPCC was corrupt.
Terri Jackson Msc MPhil MInstP MISCS