To The Daily Sun,
Considering his accuracy record, now that President Obama has declared that global warming is "an immediate risk to our national security," we can be assured that it's not a problem, just a hoax.
James Ververka tells us that it's the politicians, not the scientists that make such climate alarmist statements. I wonder if Veverka and the scientists will speak out and condemn President Obama for his alarmist, and laughable, claim? Or will they, as they usually do, support his alarmist claim overtly or with their silence?
In his last letter (6/3/2015) Veverka resumes his name-calling, providing misinformation, stating as facts things that are still contested, and just a little hypocrisy.
Veverka complains that I cited two magazine articles rather than "peer reviewed" journal articles as if the authors of the articles just imagined all the claims they report, and perhaps even the scientists they quote. Hogwash.
My first reference concerned the global cooling that occurred from the 1950s to the late 1970s. Many peer reviewed articles, including one by Rasool and Schneider, and dozens of magazine articles quoted a variety of scientists expressing strong concerns about possible catastrophic global cooling during 1970-1979. Even the graph referenced by Veverka shows this cooling period.
Nevertheless, Veverka claims that most scientists were projecting global warming during the cooling period up to about 1978. If true, wouldn't you expect those scientists to stop the flood of alarmist global cooling articles that came out over 10 years? Not contesting the global cooling articles at the time indicates at least acceptance of their possibility.
The Lomborg article I referenced was authored by Lomborg himself. Contrary to Veverka's claim, Lomborg is a believer in man-made global-warming, just not an alarmist which apparently makes him a "denier".
Recently, demonstrating their desire to quash any debate or assessment of the proposed efforts to cut CO2, climate alarmists stopped Lomborg's effort in Australia to assess the cost/benefit analysis of various policies "such as fighting malaria, reducing malnutrition, cutting air pollution, improving education and tackling climate change." (See: http://goo.gl/joMpFQ) Since the politicians want to spend many trillions of dollars while making very little progress fighting climate-change, a cost/benefit analysis seems like a very reasonable thing to do; but not if you benefit from that spending.
Veverka complains that I have not addressed his question of what is causing the current warming which he apparently believes is something different from the warming period that has been bringing the earth's climate gradually back from the little ice age. The Lloyd article I cited in my (5/30/2015) letter indicates that Veverka's question is irrelevant since Lloyd's study shows that the "earth's temperature change over the last 100 years is well within the earth's natural variability per century over the last 8000 years".
Lloyd was a "lead author" of the UN's IPCC report. While Veverka apparently agrees with many of the IPCC report's authors, he doesn't accept this author. Veverka insists on "peer reviewed" reports. Lloyd's article is peer reviewed, but Veverka doesn't accept it. I think we have broken the code: if an article supports what Veverka likes its acceptable; if says something else, its author is a "denier".
Veverka's insistence on "peer reviewed" articles is a little amusing since three of the five references he provides are blogs, one is the Weather company website, and one is a stand-alone graph; none is a "peer reviewed" article.
Until recently it has been widely acknowledged that there has been no global warming over the last 18-plus years despite the increase in CO2. (This "hiatus" from the model predictions is perhaps why they changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change".) Recently, to save their claimed relationship between CO2 and global warming, new efforts are being made (and are being contested) to explain away the widely acknowledged "hiatus" in global warming. That debate will continue; but not many, if any, models predicted this hiatus.
It should be noted that the models showing increasing temperature caused by CO2 typically overstate heating by several times because the alarmists overstate the effect of CO2 on warming. (Interested readers would benefit from a clear 13 minute video that discusses this and other key areas of contention: https://goo.gl/hTBL1k)
Veverka tries to blame the politicians for all the predictions of disaster that failed to occur. But, that isn't true. Most models over-estimated temperature increases by several times, some scientists such as , e.g., Professors David Wasdell and Guy McPherson, predict runaway global warming and the extinction of almost all human life by 2040. And, at the least scientists have supported, by their silence, all the non-occurring predictions of disaster.
The environmentalists who were the original drivers of many environmental actions began doing some good things, but their extreme and unscientific demands have been very harmful and it's tempting to say anti-America and anti-human.
Their excessive environmental regulations caused millions of good jobs in well operated businesses with responsible, but not "good enough," environmental impact to be shifted from the U.S. to nations with no pollution controls. The result was increased rather than decreased pollution and loss of millions of good American jobs.
Tens of thousands of birds, including protected species, are killed annually by windmills and solar arrays. The alternate energy businesses are subsidized with our tax dollars, increase our energy costs, increase our taxes, and are given a pass for their environmental impact as long as they show proper appreciation to the proper politicians.
The politicians and the scientists saw environmentalism and then man-made global warming as an opportunity to increase their wealth and power. They have done very well. So, they tell us that man-made climate change is a severe, but manageable, crisis that requires action and spending trillions of dollars.
But, despite their claims, neither the scientists nor the politicians act as if they even believe their own story. If President Obama believed that climate change was our biggest problem, he could speak about it from the Rose Garden; he doesn't need to fly around the country to proclaim climate alarmism. But, he has made over 1000 flights as President, each flight creating more CO2 than a small town.
Al Gore, who has become rich off man-made global warming alarmism, flies in private jets and uses more electricity in his home than many neighborhoods. He claims to provide carbon offsets (via his own business) but the CO2 is created now while it takes at least 10 years for a tree to start using lots of CO2.
Have the IPCC and scientists forgone conferences in exotic locations to avoid contributing more CO2 into the atmosphere? Nope.
The politicians and scientists want you to give up your hard earned money and pay more for energy and everything else you buy so they can enrich themselves.
Despite the billions spent to "prove" man-made global warming, the alarmists have failed. The alarmists' models continue to be wrong, the alarmists continue manipulating or hiding their data, the alarmists make fake claims of "concensus," and they try to prevent peer reviews and printing of research that doesn't support the man-made global warming myth that benefits the politicians and the scientists who have been bought. The man-made climate-change debate is not over, it still rages. (For an in-depth education: https://goo.gl/XbYTVP)
Some scientists and politicians are probably true believers. But the actions of most don't support their words. Remember that no matter how much money is spent, no matter how much poorer people are made to fight climate change, no matter how many more millions of people die because money is spent on climate change that could be much more usefully spent, none of the spending will have much impact on the earth's climate.