October 24th, 2020

Check the real scientific data on climate

By Letter to the Editor on November 30, 2019.

I’m not sure where the writer of the Nov. 20 letter to the editor “Climate-change deniers show lack of logic” finds climate deniers. I haven’t met one! Even among the ill-informed, no one denies that climate changes. Pressed, they’ll explain they “think” they heard somewhere that climate had been changing even before North America was a giant ocean – the same place in 2019 that drought pesters the inhabitant.

I think the confusion may arise when armchair experts commingle those who don’t know the difference between the cryosphere and the North Atlantic Oscillation with real scientists who’ve studied and became experts on the multitudes of scientific disciplines involved in understanding the complexity of such things as geology, orbital geometry and climatic change. And more!

Accredited scientists like Willie Soon, Patrick Moore, William Happer, Freeman Dyson, Ed J. Wegman (who in 2002 knocked Michael Mann and his faked “hockey stick graph” out of the global-warming arena), Chris Landsea, legendary MIT scientist Richard Lidzen, Vince Gray, Robert M. Carter – they’re the experts. They all dared (and dare) having funding cut, grants vanquished, names slandered, their life’s work derailed and labelled iconoclastic by child alarmists, amorphous disciples and politicians full of devilry with a goal to control the masses. It’s a grand time in our history for adherents of the doomsayer theses they author, who “peer review” among themselves, and feed a malleable public so easily frightened by phoney climate friggypoo. Letter writer Frances Schultz ends with the words, “When will we ever learn?” I agree – when? When will the global warming/climate change fraternity stop denying indisputable scientific data readily available?

Please seek and understand data far removed from Hollywood and the IPCC. Take a day, be brilliant for one day – go beyond the 45-second news clip on TV. Go beyond the clever politician-turned-scientist, movie maker and salesman parading doomsayer orthodoxy. Go beyond the platform created for similar-minded, scare-mongering opportunists, not one who walks the talk, living a carbon-based opulence few in all humanity on planet Earth will ever experience!

Alvin W. Shier


Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George McCrea

An opinion offered with an attitude usually means a weak factual base. And when the true believers start calling out “heretic, unnclean and denier” it’s a sign that the end is near. These cults are always craziest right before they collapse completely.


The list of people does not represent climate scientists who have the “real scientific data”. Most are not trained climate scientists, nor have most conducted ANY scientific research on climate. Richard Lindzen is an exception.

Willie Soon – astrophysicist – theoretical work on solar cycles refuted by many scientists, discovered to have been funded by oil and gas interests, failed to disclose in his publications

Patrick Moore – science training but runs a PR company and is a consultant, does not do any scientific research on climate

William Happer – physicist, specialty optics, no training or scientific research on climate

Freeman Dyson – theoretical physicist, no training or scientific research on climate

Edward Wegman – statistician, no training or scientific research on climate – hired to do a hatchet job on the hockey stick (subsequently hockey stick replicated by many independent scientific research reports)

Chris Landsea – trained climate scientist has conducted scientific research on climate – he has published that he has no doubts that global warming is occurring and that it is due to greenhouse gases – he is skeptical about the size of the enhancement of hurricanes

Richard Lindzen – trained climate scientist has conducted scientific research on climate. He does not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans are responsible for increasing it significantly, but he has a model that predicts that tropical clouds will open up and allow for heat to escape into space (nearly all relevant scientists reject his model)

Vincent Gray – trained chemist, no training or scientific research on climate – claims IPCC wrong without producing any evidence of his own

Robert M. Carter – trained paleontologist and geologist – some scientific research on paleo climate – well known for his widely refuted claim that global warming had stopped.

Not an impressive list.

With respect to the point about persecution and pulling funding, the one exception, Lindzen, far from being persecuted, he was extremely well funded through his career before retirement in 2013, received many honours for his research.

Dennis Bremner

grinandbearit, good point, if not trained as a Climatologist then perhaps there are questions. Can you tell us out of the 11000+ scientists that signed the “consensus” how many are Climatologists because what if there are only 4, would that make everyone elses “signing of the consensus” irrelevant? You may be onto something


My preference, when it is possible, is to look at the publications of actively researching and journal publishing climate scientists, rather that citing frequently spurious signed lists.
There have been several peer-reviewed summaries of the research on this topic. 97-98% of such scientific publications generally support the conclusions of the IPCC on the importance of attending to anthropogenic climate change.
Here is one published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Duane Pendergast

Thanks Alvin, for going beyond the cult of the day to provide some balance.

Tris Pargeter

Right. We all know science is a cult. For sure. Not religion, or current conservatism…..
I for one very much appreciate the wonderful symmetry on the part of the Herald editorial staff, putting this letter right next to Gwynne Dyer’s on the latest version of climate change denialism as an example! Not that it will be perceived that way by the recalcitrant right, but to quote a poet, “do not be afraid of NO, who has so very far to go….”
For another example, I just read an article about the United Christian Party’s convention this weekend where Preston Manning, that high priest of the conservative “movement,” opines that although him and his conservative minions agree that there is climate change, and always HAS been, and have noticed that two thirds of voters want something done differently to address it, which goes some way to explaining their relative loss in the election, they want to offer their trademark right wing “balance” on it, but still don’t see how they can support the carbon tax; it’s got such a bad rep now now for some reason (!?) This despite what economists say, one being the winner of the Nobel prize in economics. But what do they know?
It’s not surprising that a political party that can be accurately defined by choosing to aid and abet that “stinking albatross” of social conservatism, (a.k.a. religion), as part of their very DNA, the UCP is also manifesting its characteristic, pure anti-intellectualism, straight up.
I’ve been reading lately how we are becoming known as “Hellberta” thanks to 55% of us voting for this overt malfeasance.

diplomacy works

Proof positive the editors at Lethbridge Herald have a sense of humour.

Publishing Gwynne Dyer’s excellent column right beside Mr. Alvin W. Shier’s climate denial-ism.

Say, is Alvin related to that other Conservative Scheer?

Trish – Parson Manning was for carbon taxes before he was against it.
Just like Kenney was against cutbacks in health, before he was for it.

Firing investigators into Kenney’s Kamikaze Kampaign and now going after the RCMP.
The entire United Christian Party is a disgrace and no one should believe a single word they say.

Here’s the Globe’s take on Con carbon tax hypocrisy: