Thank you for publishing the letter of May 2018. I acknowledge the writer’s credentials and expertise, but dispute his assertions. Credentials are not evidence. I am not sure that being “a contributor to three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports” is a positive credential, given that the IPCC is more political than scientific, and has been driven by passage of time and errors in its predictions to correct its excessive estimates.
I note that much of the work involves computer simulations and projections, at best a highly uncertain area. The point of my prior letter was false and incorrect predictions of climate change and disaster, the list of which goes on and on.
The writer did not dispute this point. Incorrect predictions discredit the predictors, aka prophets. When “The test of prophecy is waiting” (Pieper), “scientists” have failed that test over and over, as their predictions have not come true. Mark Twain, in “A Connecticut Yankee,” noted that false prophets seem more impressive when they predict things so far away in distance or time that they cannot be checked, but when they are near, can be checked, have been checked, and found false, their impressiveness evaporates.
We now have several decades of watching “scientific” predictions on global warming and climate change which have not come true. We also have many recent studies showing that articles in peer-reviewed journals are incorrect, use bad science, and/or are not replicable. We cannot trust the “authority” of such journals, but must evaluate them on the merits.
(1) The 97 percent figure (consensus of scientists agreeing that human behavior contributes to global warming) is simply not correct, and has been discredited over and over. The Cook study is defective because of misrepresentation and overinclusion. Cook is cited, but not critics, not their criticisms of Cook. But even if correct, this would not answer the question of whether global warming is harmful or that human contributions are significant.
(2) Researchers of Antarctic ice cores have noted a lag of about 1,400 years between carbon dioxide and atmospheric warming. The warming preceeds carbon dioxide increases, and therefore cannot be caused by the carbon dioxide. A recent article in Scientific American (Ferguson, 3/1/2013) argues that this lag is “only” 200 years, not 1,400 years, but does not dispute the lag. Thus the assertion that “The ice cores tell us otherwise” is not correct. If temperatures warm today, but carbon dioxide increases only occur 200 or 1,400 years later, carbon dioxide cannot be the cause. This is “an inconvenient truth.”
(3) The writer advocates a carbon tax, which is not justified by the evidence. Actually, he does not offer any evidence, except the ice cores, which do not provide evidence. He does say that carbon dioxide “should not be called a pollutant” and “some people have hijacked climate change to increase government and control human behavior.” Unfortunately, the support of carbon taxes does the same.
(4) I note, lest I be misunderstood, that I do not dispute there is some global warming and that some human actions have been harmful, such as pollution, habitat destruction, deforestation and overuse of some environments. Global warming is cyclical, and has regularly occurred during the past. The questions are whether and to what extent it is “man-made” and “harmful.” However, false warnings and “solutions” divert us from solving the real problems. Much of human wealth and health today is directly attributable to the energy revolution, including coal and oil, which has extended human life and largely erased poverty. Carbon taxes are not a solution.
Alan L. Gallagher