The Following letters are between Jack Van Wingerden and a certain Dr. Mann....The opening letter is from Jack Van Wingerden 8th April
Several recent letters have proposed we modify our behavior to prevent the destruction of the Earth within the next few decades. I am going to make a simple assumption that these people were not around during the last great scientific debate (1970s) about the world entering a new ice age.
The people describing the horrors of this inevitable ice age were researchers who needed more money from the government to improve their climate models and study possible solutions for the problem. Further research was needed because you really had to have an intimate knowledge of the problem to be able to suggest how to alter the outcome.
Now we have similar requests from various researchers requiring much more money to study global warming in order to allow them to prevent the cataclysmic results of temperature change. These researchers have these huge models that they have created at government expense that they claim need more money to improve their accuracy. Former Vice President Al Gore has stated in the past that the discussion is over and human being-caused global warming is fact. If that is true, why do these people need more money?
One of the tests of a good model is to input old data and see if the results matched reality. The climate models tested this way did not work. The “climate-gate” scandal has surfaced and the original data shows the last decade to have been a reversal of the previous 20-year temperature trend (oscillating system?) and further disproved the claims of the most vociferous warmists, Michael Mann in particular. His data made the medieval warming period (800-1400 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1600-1850 AD) disappear. But, it was used to justify the Kyoto treaty, U.S. policy and the U.N.’s global warming activities.
Now the Virginia attorney general is trying to subpoena the records of the $500,000 in University of Virginia funds Mann received to determine if taxpayer fraud is involved. Democrat congressmen in Virginia have introduced a bill in their legislature that would stop the attorney general from investigating. They must agree with Gore that the science is irrefutable.
By the way, in support of the global warming scam, the ethanol mandate has been increased again by the EPA, to the point where almost half the corn grown in the U.S. is being converted into moonshine for our cars. In 2001, 7 percent of corn went to ethanol, about 707 million bushels. In 2010, the ethanol share was 39.4 percent, about 5 billion bushels. If cars could get inebriated, they would be extremely happy. There are even tariffs on imported ethanol to ensure that Archer Daniels Midland makes a nice profit. (Democrats supported by Big Business? This can’t be true!)
Since it actually takes more energy to create the ethanol than it contains, we suffer a net loss for each gallon made. We are producing or importing more energy than we get from the alcohol. Total pollution is much higher than it would be using straight gasoline. Car mileage goes down when ethanol is used, while farm subsidies go up. March corn futures hit $6.67 a bushel, up from $4 a year ago.
The U.S. provides about 40 percent of global corn production, so world food prices are escalating drastically based on this stupidity. The government has even fudged the inflation index to make it look like we are all OK. Besides, Congress voted itself an extra $10,000 per year in salary since 2009, so this inflation doesn’t bother them. Have you had a raise in the last two years?
Politicians love this set up because they get bigger donations from corn growers and ethanol producers. Regulators love it because they can hire more people, get promoted, and get more control of our lives. They could care less that our cost for food and fuel are being driven up by this hypocrisy.
In case you missed it, Gore recently made a public statement that his support for ethanol mandates was predicated on the need to win his first several presidential primary elections in corn producing states. He now admits that the use of ethanol as an alternate fuel is useless and uneconomical. Way to go Al! Pander for that vote regardless of the consequences!
Contact Congressman Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, and the president’s new executive-ordered commission on regulatory reform and tell them to delete the ethanol mandate and stop the madness.
Jack Van Wingerden
This reply is from Dr. Mann dated 22nd April
An individual named Jack Van Wingerden did a grave disservice to your readers by making false and defamatory statements about me and my climate scientist colleagues in his April 8 letter.
Van Wingerden makes the libelous claim that the so-called “hockey stick” — my work published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1, 000 years — made “the medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age disappear.”
That is simply a lie. He conveniently ignores the fact that the highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences affirmed my research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006 (see e.g. “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate,” New York Times, June 22, 2006, among many others). Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently come to the same conclusion, and more recent work by several groups shows that the recent warmth is unusual over an even longer timeframe.
Adding insult to injury, Van Wingerden makes the ridiculous statement that my work was “used to justify the Kyoto treaty,” apparently unaware of the fact that the Kyoto Treaty was adopted in 1997 — my work was published a year later. He also cites a demand for all my personal correspondences and emails by an activist Virginia Attorney General (Ken Cuccinelli) as evidence of “fraud.” Cuccinelli’s actions were widely denounced as a McCarthyist witch-hunt by more than 700 leading scientists across Virginia, and by numerous public policy groups including the American Association of University Professors, and the highly conservative Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. It has legally been challenged by the University of Virginia, and was denounced by five different editorials in the Washington Post: U-Va. should fight Cuccinelli's faulty investigation of Michael Mann”, May 7, 2010; “University of Virginia should fight the Va. attorney general's inquiry”, May 13, 2010; “U-Va. admirably resists Mr. Cuccinelli's fishing expedition”, May 29, 2010; “A judge puts a damper on Mr. Cuccinelli’s witch hunt”, Aug. 31, 2010; “Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia”, Oct. 6, 2010, and dozens of other editorials across the nation.
Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by people like Van Wingerden, should consult the scientist-run website: www.realclimate.org, or scientifically-based books on the topic like my “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.”
Michael E. Mann
Professor, Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University
Director, Penn State Earth System Science Center
This is a reply to the above letter from Jack Van Wingerden dated 25th May
- mlive.com (click to see graph)
Dr. Michael E. Mann’s April 22 counter to the April 8 letter I submitted on climate change skips the necessary steps of a true rebuttal and attempts to denigrate the content of my letter by hyperbole alone. The scientific references that were in my article were removed by the editor for space considerations. You need to go to the Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews, 19:213 - 226, and see the data supporting my statement on the temperature variance. The document shows that of the last 10,500 years, 9,099 have been warmer than 2010, many periods by more than 2 degrees Celsius. Of course, if you include the data from the ice age, you would have evidence of global warming. Further, there was a congressional report review (House Energy and Commerce Committee) of the “Hockey Stick” where members of the National Academy of Science review board agreed with the harsh criticisms of Msrs. Wegman, McKitrick and McIntyre , that the mathematics of the study were suspect, biased and in some cases, totally wrong. This “research “ has since disappeared from the U.N. IPCC website, no longer referenced as a scientific basis for global warming actions. The professor refers to the New York Times article as supporting his findings rather than the actual NAS report because the NYT shaded and spun the NAS findings.
I also find it interesting that the good professor is hoping that the people at the University of Virginia will violate the laws of their state. Also, listing a large group of people advocating for illegal activity does not prove anything.
Since Mann believes his data is correct, what is his problem with somebody looking at it? You will also note that he did not directly refute the statement of the smoothing of the data about the medieval warming period and the mini-ice age. He reverts to the standard juvenile liberal policy of just calling people names rather than enter into a discussion of specifics.
The people pushing this country to sign the Kyoto Treaty constantly use his report as proof that we need to do this immediately and are criminals for not stopping climate change. Limiting the warming argument to just greenhouse gasses leads to the following. Water vapor, not CO2, makes up well over 90 percent of the so-called "greenhouse" gases in our atmosphere. CO2 is responsible for less than 5 percent.. Man is responsible for less than 3 percent of the total annual CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. So even at worst case, Man contributes 0.15 percent of the total overall CO2 into the atmosphere.
Additionally, the temperature data used in anthropomorphic global warming justifications is usually cherry picked to support the so-called scientific discussion. In an oscillating system all you have to do is pick one side of the data slope to claim it is either going up or down. The latest evidence of this finagling is the emails among these scientists that talk about methods of hiding the recent drop in temperatures over the last 10 years. When you use 1970 to 2000, you come up with a large growth in temperature per decade. When you use 1880 to 2010, the growth drops to below 0.05 degree C per decade, an amount that is very hard to quantify, especially with the changes in measurement techniques in the last century. I find it interesting that scientists have also reported that the planet Mars has warmed recently, maybe from the emissions of the Mars rovers operating there.
You must also consider that these people have an ulterior motive for fabricating disaster scenarios and grabbing headlines. Many hard socialists, such as Van Jones, have switched to the environmental movement in order to use fear of impending doom and manipulation of the court system to implement their programs.
Look into both sides of the argument, and the motivation of the people involved, and decide for yourselves what to believe.
Jack Van Wingerden