To The Daily Sun,
I guess Don Ewing is not up to the challenge. He would rather make excuses, like discarding my rebuttal of his claim the warming trend of 160 years ago is also responsible for the present warming as minutiae. An increase in the sun's output is responsible for our leaving the LIA behind but the sun's output dropped significantly, beginning in the 1950s.
If the sun caused the 19th Century warming, why is warming accelerating if the sun began to cool more than 60 years ago? Don? Because he can't answer, he goes back to the standard CATO-Koch Brothers parroting and cherry picking. Nice try, Don, but you didn't answer the question, and again in this last letter just went rambling off into the usual right-wing cloud of unsourced talking points. I debunked two other bits of minutiae in the same letter. Russ Wiles made false claims about the polar regions which were easily refuted with scientific data and the technology we use. Footnotes were provided from NASA and more. Minutiae!
It takes far fewer words to make a claim than to provide a rebuttal. So it's easy for Don to ramble off a lot of Exxon-supported, unsubstantiated claims in a short time. Rebuttals demand constructing faceted explanations so that is why I chose just three of the popular myths of the denial crowd. As you can see by his latest letter, Mr. Ewing strings together the same old right-wing propaganda. Complicated answers are required for simplistic claims, so he may consider it just troublesome minutiae to be found in error. "Saying it's so" is how Mr. Ewing rants, while never citing sources or references. Of course, his sources are corporate-funded, too. Everything he writes can be refuted, but it has to be done claim by claim. Science brings many lines of evidence together to make a case so counter claims have to be addressed in similar fashion.
So while we are at it, let me get to some more minutiae. Besides the fact that Mr. Ewing has no answers as to why the sun's output and temperatures are going in opposite directions now, Mr. Ewing states, "based on the failed predictions of the consensus of his "scientists" over the last 20-30 years, is unpredictable." Unfortunately for the purveyors of pseudoscience, the predictions have not failed. The IPCC predictions on sea level are right in line with satellite data and tide gauges over the last 25 years.  Tide gauges show that the sea level has been rising since 1970, when installed.
Furthermore, forecasts of global temperature rises have proved to be remarkably accurate according to a paper published by the journal Nature Geoscience. Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University accurately predicted the warming in the past decade 1999-2010, relative to the decade 1986-1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.  Predicting greenhouse gases will warm the planet isn't new. In 1861, chemist and physicist John Tyndale predicted eventual warming due to CO2. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist who claimed in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He was also a physicist.
Climate models predict trends, not events. Climate is not the same as weather. If Russ Wiles had known the difference between weather and climate, he would not have cited the views of meteorologists as relevant on climate change consensus. Consensus among climate scientists is very strong. I will explain in my next letter. I hope I didn't waste any of Don's time with the minutiae of debunking his claim about predictions. Of course there are many more examples of accurate predictions but, hey, this isn't a thesis.