Monday, April 2nd 2012, 6:23 AM EDT
Holland — In his “My Take” in Tuesday’s Sentinel, Greg Murray says Steve Goreham, who spoke on climate change to the Ottawa County Patriots, is “not a scientist” and not in line with what he calls “overwhelming consensus” among climate scientists. Online comments echo “my lie” that Goreham is a scientist.
What is a scientist? Wiki defines it as: “one engaging in systematic activity to acquire knowledge.” Does that differ from Mr. Goreham’s many years of research? Regarding consensus, why doesn’t the media tell us about 31,478 scientists and others who signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science which reads: “There is no convincing evidence human release of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases is or will cause catastrophic increase in earth’s atmosphere.” Nor do we hear from many meteorologists who disagree. Instead, heads of meteorology agencies echo climate change without input from members.
Murray states national academies of science of 18 countries acknowledge human contribution in climate change. If he had bothered to attend Tuesday he would have heard Mr. Goreham agree. He would have learned Earth’s naturally occurring events also impact climate change (both warming and cooling). Yet nature’s impact is 100 times greater than man. Missing from Murray’s claims of consensus are scandals evidenced in leaked e-mails demonstrating false data to arrive at projections by elite scientists.
The so-called “science” of global warming is a religion, based on emotion despite evidence that doesn’t require a scientist to see. Should we offer sacrifices like ancients did? Sadly, we already are. We’re not throwing maidens into the hot lava. Instead billions are wasted on climate change with the same effect achieved by human sacrifice to “the gods” in ancient times.
According to Murray, the general population is too dumb to understand. When you learn the polar bear population is increasing in contrast to propaganda suggesting bears are becoming extinct, does it take a scientist to realize why pictures of polar bears are doctored? When actual reported temperatures and ice cap thickness doesn’t agree with computer model projections by “experts,” does it require a degree to understand?
CO2 is a life-giving compound without which all plants on Earth would die. CO2 represents a small portion of the greenhouse gas effect; most is due to water vapor. Should water be labeled toxic? Does CO2 have an impact on the Earth’s temperature? The answer is yes but the impact is barely measurable. Many factors, including natural cycles contribute to both warming and cooling of the Earth. All one has to do is look at centuries of temperature variation to see this. But that might require only common sense, not an elite scientist.
As for the “health” argument, is energy use polluting our air and water? If so, how come air and water quality have greatly improved in the last 50 yrs at the same time far more electricity was generated, car miles driven, etc.? If fossil fuels cause pollution, 50 years of results are 180 degrees from projections.
Is Mr. Goreham a scientist? Does he not engage in systematic activity to gain knowledge? Predictably, neither Murray nor others were among the 100 who came to hear Goreham Tuesday. It’s a shame they didn’t bother to present an argument, but then, it’s easier to claim “consensus” and make personal attacks than debate facts. Unfortunately, there never was a factual debate or review of projections against actual data. It is easier to repeat a fairy tale and a false notion of damaging the Earth for the next 150 years than to look at the facts of the last 150 years — or the last 10,000 years for that matter.
— Jim Chiodo is president of the Ottawa County Patriots