Articles Tagged "Reply To Article"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Saturday, August 18th 2012, 6:30 AM EDT
Since writing yesterday’s On the Culture entry, The Moral Downside of Climate Change, I’ve received quite a bit of email, including some from Catholic climate scientists, contesting and, in some cases, misunderstanding the point I was trying to make. Let me say at the outset that, after doing some more research, I will write something about the specific disputes among scientists concerning climate change. Because I am not yet prepeared to do that here, many will be disappointed. But for now I wish to offer some clarifications relating to my original moral point.
I have argued that it is both wrong and dangerous to elevate climate change into a moral cause, and I would first like to explain more carefully what I do not mean by this statement. First, I do not at all mean that we should be unconcerned about those who may be adversely affected by climate change. Many Catholic bishops and even Pope Benedict himself have pointed out, quite rightly, that any problems which may be occasioned by climate change (or, indeed, by any damaging weather condition) will fall most heavily on the poor, for the strained resources of the poor do not permit them to protect themselves as easily against the repercussions of drought, flooding, rising sea levels, or anything else which might negatively impact their homes or their livelihood. Clearly, it is a central moral demand of Christianity to assist the poor in their distress.
Second, I do not mean that there are no compelling reasons to do some of the things advocated by those who have elevated stopping climate change itself to the status of a moral cause. For example, there are many good reasons to limit both our use of fossil fuels and the way in which we use them. It is good to reduce pollution, to conserve resources for future generations, to decrease our dependence for fuel on unstable regions of the world, and so on. There are both pragmatic and specifically moral reasons for taking these goods seriously.
Wednesday, August 15th 2012, 7:17 AM EDT
In his Aug. 6 op-ed, "A New Climate-Change Consensus," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp speaks of "the trend—a decades-long march toward hotter and wilder weather." We have seen quite a few such claims this summer season, and Mr. Krupp insists that we accept them as "true." Only with Lewis Carroll's famous definition of truth, "What I tell you three times is true," is this the case.
But repetition of a fib does not make it true. As one of many pieces of evidence that our climate is doing what it always does, consider the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's year-by-year data for wet and dry years in the continental U.S.
From 1900 to the present, there are only irregular, chaotic variations from year to year, but no change in the trend or in the frequency of dry years or wet years. Sometimes there are clusters of dry years, the most significant being the dry Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. These tend to be followed by clusters of wet years.
Despite shrill claims of new record highs, when we look at record highs for temperature measurement stations that have existed long enough to have a meaningful history, there is no trend in the number of extreme high temperatures, neither regionally nor continentally. We do see the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s setting the largest number of record highs, at a time when it is acknowledged that humans had negligible effect on climate.
Thursday, August 2nd 2012, 4:43 PM EDT
Subject: You should be embarrassed by your article on Sen. Inhofe and Droughts
Your article on Sen. Inhofe is absurd. 'Despite drought, Inhofe's stance on climate change remains firm'
Why should the current drought challenge Inhofe's climate views? Have you even taken a second to look at the history of droughts? For the sake of your professional journalism pride, you should do a follow up article and basically admit you published a rubbish article.
The current drought is not even in same league as the “low CO2” droughts of the 1950s and 1930s. Why did you fail to do even the most rudimentary research for your article?
Click source to read FULL reply to article from Marc Morano
Saturday, July 14th 2012, 5:23 PM EDT
Dear Mr. Pearce
Yesterday, whilst waiting for my wife to join me in Marks and Spencer, I chanced to glance at the latest edition of New Scientist, in which your contribution appears [Tree rings suggest Roman world was warmer than thought]. I confess that, both for reasons of time and from a sense of disenchantment anyway with the populist rag, I did little more than skim read. However, I think that enough was gleaned legitimately to allow for comment.
The thrust of your piece was that the handle of the hockey stick was, in fact, correct. Somebody's recent study of tree rings had indicated that, whilst they might or might not be wider or narrower, much could be deduced from their density. From this it had been concluded that the past two thousand years had seen a warm temperature continuum of remarkable consistency up to about the middle of the 19th century, say. This, in turn, explained why our forebears had been able to cultivate vines as far North as York. Thence, the conclusion seemed to be drawn that Mann had been right all along in claiming a perilous temperature increase from roughly the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the blade.
Of course, MacIntyre's undermining of Mann's little frolic was not so much upon scientific grounds although, God knows, there was much science to it, as upon his blithe disregard for statistical rigour. You make no mention of this. Why, pray? Neither do you make any mention of Briffa's equally egregious pseudo-science directed at sustaining the original Mann fiction. You also overlook circumstances that are richly supported by multi-stranded evidence. Examples? Well, how about the fact that:
Thursday, July 12th 2012, 6:09 AM EDT
After decades of debunking and statements by responsible scientists that climate is not weather and individual anomalies are not an indication of climate change, the government funded IPCC lackeys at the UK's Met Office and America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have publicly attributed recent bad weather events to man-made climate change. These irresponsible boffins' shrill claims illustrate the desperation in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp in the face of declining public concern over climate change. While admitting that it is impossible to blame a single event on global warming, climate alarmists are claiming attribution is possible as long as it is framed in terms of probability. They have gone from lies, to damn lies and now, finally, to statistics.
As reported in that paragon of investigative journalism, the Huffington Post, the news originated from an online conference by NOAA personnel. “Climate Change, Extreme Weather Linked In Studies Examining Texas Drought And U.K. Heat,” the headlines blared. And according to author Deborah Zabarenko the news is dire: 2011 was among 15 warmest years globally; Extreme weather events show influence of climate change; Greenhouse gas levels in atmosphere reaches new high. Citing the Huffington article:
Overall, 2011 was a year of extreme events - from historic droughts in East Africa, northern Mexico and the southern United States to an above-average cyclone season in the North Atlantic and the end of Australia's wettest two-year period ever, scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United Kingdom's Met Office said.
Sunday, July 8th 2012, 6:46 AM EDT
SIR – In your special report on the Arctic (“The melting north”, June 16th) you said polar bears are “struggling” and it is “nonsense” that they are thriving. Anything other than a cursory reading of the data shows no such thing.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates, polar bear numbers are at least twice as high as in the 1960s. Of the eight populations said to be decreasing, the official data table and map produced by the Polar Bear Specialist Group shows that two are only “thought” or “believed” to be declining entirely due to hunting; four are in decline only according to computer models, despite some claims by “traditional ecological knowledge” (ie, locals) that they are thriving; one has more than doubled but is now said to be “currently declining” because of crowding; and one showed a real decline that has recently been reversed. Meanwhile, the four populations you described as unknown include the huge Barents Sea population, which has seen dramatic increase in sightings, damage to huts and devastation of barnacle goose colonies on the west coast of Svalbard, all prima facie evidence of “thriving”. There is a strong smell of “policy-based evidence making” here.
Since the 1970s the population of white whales around Svalbard has increased, as have walrus and barnacle geese numbers. Protection from hunting has had, and is likely to have, a much bigger impact on Arctic wildlife than climate trends.
Monday, July 2nd 2012, 11:06 AM EDT
I am writing in response to the recent article (EM 30 June 2012) on Cllr Janette Jenkinson’s call for special training for councillors in order that they may deal more effectively with the huge increase in wind turbine applications.
My advice to councillors would be “oppose oppose oppose”. Wind turbines are a politically driven “quick-fix” for which is there is scant evidence to support their alleged green credentials. Wind energy is unreliable, inefficient and unstorable. Furthermore it is uneconomic without subsidy. Even single installations for farmers qualify for payments from the 15% renewables premium included in everybody’s bills and the maths is simple. For every 5p of electricity they generate they get roughly 10p back in subsidy. They are damaging to the greater environment, the habitats of wildlife, tourism and the health and safety of residents.
In Scotland, wind turbines may not be sited within 500m of residents. In England there is no such separation requirement. In theory it could be at the foot of your garden. The government have indicated that subsidies for wind farms may be phased out and, in a move which clearly signals that they have been found out, wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has dropped plans to build a factory in Scotland.
Source Link: ukipnw.co.uk
Monday, June 4th 2012, 6:45 PM EDT
The following article is in response to letter from Florida DEP: Lead letter: State will use good science for environment
by Drew Bartlett, director, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida Department of Evironmental Protection
Was “Good Science” Really Applied in the Recent Mercury Report Issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection?
By Willie Soon
As a scientist who has spent the past ten years studying the science of mercury (Hg) and the biologically toxic form of mercury, methylmercury (MeHg), I was taken aback by the clear misuse of the phrase “good science” in a recent letter by Florida DEP’s director of the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration (published in the Florida Times-Union newspaper).
The director referred to FDEP’s draft report (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/tmdls/mercury/florida-merc-tmdl-draft-052412.pdf) in setting a strict mercury limit in Florida’s river, stream, lake, and coastal waters, which was released May 24. After a careful examination of the draft report, however, I have come to the conclusion that it contains serious flaws such that the strict mercury limit proposed by FDEP is not scientifically defensible.
First, FDEP’s notion that mercury “pollution” in our air, water, and land is a new, manmade phenomenon is simply wrong. While FDEP cited a 2008 paper that reported mean mercury levels of 0.25 parts per million (or ppm) in the hair of a group of women of childbearing age (16 to 49) in the Florida Panhandle, a study of 550-year-old Alaskan mummies reported average hair mercury levels of 1.2 ppm for four adults and 1.44 ppm for four infants. One mummy had hair mercury levels as high as 4.6 ppm!
Tuesday, May 29th 2012, 4:09 AM EDT
Thanks for reproducing in your recent post my account of the left’s attacks on our scientists and donors. It’s a story that isn’t getting nearly enough attention in the blogosphere. I’m disappointed, though, that you also reproduced, at length and even endorsed, the lies and distortions written about us by Suzanne Goldenberg. A simple call or email to me or Jim Lakely would have given us a chance to correct her many misstatements.
I won’t ask for a correction or apology, but please understand that …
(a) Concerning ICCC-7, we set a record for the number of cosponsors (60), 12 speakers asked to speak after only 2 withdrew, and the mood was decidedly upbeat. Opponents (including “Forecast the Facts” and Occupy Wall Street) promised to disrupt the conference and failed utterly – fewer than 50 people showed up for their rallies. Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.
Thursday, May 17th 2012, 6:00 AM EDT
Aspiring apparatchiks of the coming world dictatorship, tiring of the hopeless race against facts in their anti-industrial carbon dioxide hoax, have finally given up the pretense of science in favor of pure, old-fashioned doomsday preaching. Having been outlasted by reality in the pseudo-science of "global cooling," undone once again in the pseudo-science of "global warming," and ultimately laughed off the stage in the unfalsifiable quackery of "global climate change," it is apparently time at last for the advocates of tyranny in the name of Gaia to play their last card: global mass hysteria.
Consider a recent New York Times editorial by James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and adjunct professor at -- where else? -- Columbia University, the headquarters of the U.S. East-Coast wing of the global socialist movement. The article is an assault on the Canadian oil sands project, and a plea to the Obama administration to do something to stop the Canadian government from allowing wealth and jobs to be created.
Hansen's diatribe -- I choose that word merely as a literal description of the article, which bears no resemblance to an argument -- is noteworthy on three fronts: (1) its tone of angry defiance, suggestive of a man whose instinct, in the face of rational defeat, is to say, "Damn all of you!"; (2) Hansen's attempt to use the Times' friendly confines to double down on the projections of his discredited climate models, without compunction at having no remaining grounds for his claims; and (3) the straightforwardness with which his proposed course of action on this issue proclaims the real, but hitherto half-concealed, purpose of the global climate fraud -- namely, a government takeover of the world economy by means of a proletarian uprising against the "capitalists."