Articles Tagged "Open Letter/Fax"

In a front-page article in the 20 December 2011 issue of EOS, entitled "What Do U.S. Students Know About Climate Change," Kevin M. Theissen makes some egregious statements that are not in harmony with basic principles that should be embraced by true practitioners of science.

First Example: "Relative to climate experts, the skeptics have an unreasonably large platform in the media and on Web sites." Irrespective of whether that claim is true or false, the suggestion that there are "experts" on one side of the debate and "skeptics" on the other side is degrading to the people that Theissen considers to be skeptics, for it implies that none of them are "experts." In reality, there are experts on both sides of the climate change debate. There are those who are truly alarmed about what they think is happening to earth's climate as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions - who for that reason are often referred to as climate alarmists - and there are those who are skeptical of the contentions of those scientists, and who for that reason are often referred to as climate skeptics. Neither of these last two appellations are degrading when they are used together; but when one group claims to be the "experts" on the issue, it degrades the other group unjustifiably.

Second Example: "... when asked what they view as reliable evidence of climate change, some students instead repeat myths like 'it's part of a natural cycle' ..." The word myths, as used in this context, is once again degrading to those to whom it is directed. A less pejorative and more appropriate word that could have been used is hypotheses, which implies neither rightness nor wrongness. Moreover, the word myth implies not only something that is wrong, but something that is unscientific. And there is an enormous body of scientific work that has established the reality of a natural cycle of climate, which going backwards in time from the Current Warm Period brings one to the Little Ice Age, then the Medieval Warm Period, then the Dark Ages Cold Period, then the Roman Warm Period and etc., throughout interglacial and glacial periods alike.

To the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, via the Canadian High Commission, London W1.

Sir

Thank You and Well done to Canada for abandoning the UN Climate Change Agreements

Your lead is a beacon of hope for millions now suffering imposed extra charges on energy, living and transport costs arising from delusional carbon taxes and charges on fuel and transport.
Additionally the burning of food – biofuels – has contributed to world food shortages and price rises.

The world economic crisis is itself being exacerbated by these baseless policies and it is in the interests of the whole world for the whole UN Climate Change policy to be totally abandoned.

Your lead is a beacon of hope for thousands of scientists who seek the truth about the world’s changing climate and indeed – like ourselves – predict extreme weather events and climate change, yet find the world’s leading scientific institutions and media committed to the failed CO2 driver theory of climate.

The CO2 theory is failed science based on fraudulent data and we wish to make two key points:

Those of you in the oil and gas industry are no doubt familiar with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that fracking is a potential source of groundwater contamination, and that a moratorium on the use of fracking should be enacted until EPA can study it to death. (Note: For lay people, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a technique used to increase oil and gas yields in petroleum-bearing formations. It involves injecting fluids at high pressure into the formation to increase its transmission properties.)

This step—one EPA has been hinting about for months—will be another nail in the energy industry’s coffin if its representatives do not step up and oppose this utterly unwarranted accusation. Will you rise to the challenge?

EPA and its allies in the environmental movement and media are claiming there is now a reason to believe fracking has contaminated the groundwater in certain wells in Wyoming, even though the use of fracking was generally considered safe and noncontroversial for the past 50 years. This is an out-and-out fabrication, which in time will be exposed. But if a moratorium is imposed before the truth comes out, energy production in the United States will suffer another serious setback. Lifting the moratorium may take years and millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

To: Dr. Roger Wakimoto

Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Boulder, Colorado

Roger, you are the head of what is perhaps the most prestigious atmospheric science laboratory on the planet, and, as such, I presume that you will always go the extra mile to protect the reputation of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and its related University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR).

I’m sure you have seen and discussed with your staff many of the “Climategate” emails released first in November, 2009, and then more recently, earlier this month.

Everyone agrees that the tone and content of many of them is a bit shrill and occasionally intolerant (kind of like University faculty meetings), but there is one repeating thread, by one of your most prestigious employees, Dr. Tom Wigley, that is far beyond the pale of most academic backbiting.

The revoking of my doctorate, the clear objective of Tom’s email, is the professional equivalent of the death penalty. I think it needs to be brought to your attention, because the basic premise underlying his machinations is patently and completely false. Dr Wigley is known as a careful scientist, but he certainly was careless here.

The global circulation of this email has caused unknown damage to my reputation. Also, please note that all communications from Dr. Wigley to his colleagues on this matter were on the NCAR/UCAR server.

Dear Secretary of State

25 November 2011

We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.

For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man's influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.

In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind's influence.

Your faith in the conclusion of Australia's Garnaut Review - that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years – is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government's own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.

Dear Sir Paul

In your article in the FT today, you repeat remarks you have made in the past about scientists having to be open about their work:

Scientists have an obligation to communicate their work to the world, and to be open and transparent about doing it. “Trust me, I’m a scientist” is not a good enough answer to give to policymakers or the general public who are looking to make informed decisions on important topics.

This is an area on which people on both sides of the global warming debate should be able to agree. However, it is clear that many in the climatological mainstream do not share this belief. The IPCC has indicated that drafts and review comments on its reports will not be published until after the main report and that, for Working Group I at least, the panel's new conflict of interest policy will not apply to the Fifth Assessment Report.

As I am sure you will agree, these decisions go against the principles of openness and transparency that you say you favour. This being the case, I am asking you, on behalf of the Royal Society, to make a public call for the IPCC to correct these issues.

I hope you can help.

Yours sincerely

Open Letter to Congress and the President:

Many of us are interested only in determining the influence of human activity on climate. Although the planet stopped warming years ago, demonstrating that human activity has had little, if any, influence on climate, it appears that many of you remain unconvinced. Many have been deceived by those who stand to benefit by continuing to deceive. They benefit by getting government grants to continue to examine the issue. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted in futile attempts to prove that added greenhouse gases are a major cause of Global Warming and to predict what might happen if the planet continued to warm. Observe that their and your credibility decline as the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to rise and the planet continues on its cooling trend.

The IPCC and others who proclaim that the planet is still getting warmer, and that the main cause is increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, are egregiously wrong. This is demonstrated by publically available measurements. From 2001 through Feb, 2011 the atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 22.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased and the average of the five reporting agencies has been on a declining trend since about 2005 and has been declining steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010. The 22.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

Dear Googlefolk;

Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do, and in this case definitely verges on the E-word.

In fact, that’s why up until now I trusted Google, because I always felt that I was being given the unvarnished truth. I always felt that Google could be trusted, because you didn’t have a dog in the fight. I believed you weren’t trying to slant your results, that you were neutral, because you had nothing to prove.

So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?

To federal MP's, friends, scientists, journalists.

Copied to UNSW Professor Matthew England, Co-Director of Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC).

Professor Matthew England responded to my request for real-world evidence of claims that carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by humans caused global warming. Below I reveal his complete failure.

Exposed are glaring falsities driving the government's climate fraud.

Below the summary is my detailed analysis sent to Matthew. It contains references so you can check for yourself—including what seems to be the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's corruption of temperature data.

Executive Summary

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

We believe that many of our brother and sister scientists are too certain of themselves regarding climate change. We have looked at the same data and same models that they have, but we have drawn different conclusions. We disagree about the range and extremity of changes and wonder if our colleagues have let their politics influence their science.

Our colleagues often point to their numbers and suggest that because many of them belong to various learned organizations, they therefore cannot be wrong. But we belong to the same organizations and we also have a large membership. Our colleagues are fond of announcing that they have polled themselves and that their resulting unanimity proves their case. But we have polled ourselves too, and we are unanimous in concluding a logical fallacy is not an ideal foundation for science. No scientific body has license to issue “Truths” determined by vote.

Earth’s climate has always changed; it has never been constant; thus we conclude that it always will change. It is also clear that mankind must have some effect on the climate. With these statements, we agree with our colleagues. We diverge when estimating the magnitude of effects.