December 14th, 2019

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

Lethbridge

Share this story:

7

15 Responses to “Check the real scientific data on climate”

  1. George McCrea says:

    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.

  2. grinandbearit says:

    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 says:

      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

      • grinandbearit says:

        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

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

  4. Tris Pargeter says:

    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.

  5. diplomacy works says:

    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:

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-remember-when-the-liberal-carbon-tax-was-a-conservative-idea/

  6. Dennis Bremner says:

    Grinandbearit raised an extremely valid point. So I did some investigation. Out of the 11,000+ scientists that have signed the “consensus” below only 25 have any training as a Climatologist. So now that fact is known, 25 people with actual credentials are now driving the world to “their opinion”. Which means these 25 people are the only ones qualified according to grinandbearit to make any kind of conclusion at all and be considered and authority. Good to know! Wonder how many of the 25 X/Y scientists were funded by the Treehugger Society, because according to Grinandbearits suggestion, if a scientists is funded by the side they side with in their study, their science might be tainted? Gee I might actually get to my guess of 4 credible people out of 11000+
    Don’t you just love the saying “what goes around, comes around”?

    https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/PAP/10.1093_biosci_biz088/3/biz088_supplemental_file_s1.pdf?Expires=1577686153&Signature=ATumIyJUgwV2njgJa-ESbT2wI20r0x9nM3w8-eKRAwLO0rkYYFrM-JDia-t4jZqN9t0KHSnwftomaZ4fo5taO-lBMHjokKC54pX9masr9uW48KL-tuMFCiCtwSzBxBSX6VGnhOLJGyV5Hx-ONgeBwmSYnDXznrg0OGkGhop9ChnG2Yt5bafC6UQh8bStVJ9X-IYp98eGl~GAmevzZ~z1yHJLX6MMHxEYyYuz8dDxVbYHKG00hv5WuEyo-f9uteHOaz~wJAaMa8cUldGUGWB8vsT1HwQpMvBgWX~2ZErMAIEJCnCw~tDPSyUtySHz57LiZUK-N~OQZfcndBbkJHG8Hg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

    • grinandbearit says:

      Dennis: I guess you missed my entire point. My point was about looking at what real climate scientists say, not lists of political activists. I guess Dennis wishes to reside in the “my team, your team” mug’s game. 97-98% of the bona fide climate scientists in the scientific literature say that human caused climate change is a major problem. No rational person who looks can reject that. Look back at the original letter that claimed that the real scientific evidence resides in those few, non experts’ opinions. I said in addition that putting forward these political lists does not advance the debate. Thanks for making this debate even more obscure for most people. Well done if you are only interested in taking sides, rather than getting to the heart of the matter. I do not know why i should expect better.

      • Dennis Bremner says:

        Its why its a concensus and not science Grinandbearit. The reason its a “concensus” is because the X/Y have literal control over who gets money for scientific study. Without proof one way or the other it will always be a concensus. Which means when you interpret the evidence your opinion is that humans are causing it. You cannot prove it, nor can you disprove it. Thats not science, thats an X/Y club who at best cannot make a decision in real life.
        What amazes me, is no one is demanding proof, even if it takes the next 10 years to prove it. What if in 30 years its found its not humans? What if its something else and we pissed away 30 years trying to prevent the wrong thing from occuring, were driving electric cars, windmills are everywhere and the planet croaks anyway…how do you do the “oops”?
        I am not a denier, I would like to see the opposing science be given free rein to dispute. Thats called science, I have no idea what they call what is happening now. Just ponder that for a moment, what if “they are wrong”?

        • Fescue says:

          I think one of your fundamental flaws is that you think science is a debate, presenting opposing views to decide who has the best argument.

          Science is, rather, the testing of a hypothesis. The scientist collects data to reject or fail-to-reject the hypothesis given a range of statistical uncertainty.

          In the case of climate science, it is very certain that we are accumulating heat energy which is raising the average global temperature and disrupting natural cycles and causing extreme weather events. Scientists are extremely certain that this is caused by human action, predominantly caused by the burning of sequestered carbon called fossil fuels.

          Alvin’s list of famous deniers have equal opportunity (and ample funds from the oil industry) to conduct real science. They don’t, and it is because their hypotheses have been rejected.

          These shenanigans have cost humanity 25 years of time to react, and now it is a crisis that may well cost us dearly.

          • phlushie says:

            Though I am not a climate change denier, as it has changed many times without human input. Now ,by consensus, climate change is the fault of human beings. This is great, now we can divert funds to fight this annomaly, but, if by 2030, we realize we were wrong. We are now broke and are struggling to survive, everyone is moving south to avoid our winters, and its a long walk or horse and buggy ride. Yes what if we go back to when the pilgrims landed in Plymouth. Maybe I should run out and shout the sky is falling.
            Maybe we should ask for definative proof that man is the cause, or even the miniscual carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the problem. Why shout down the people who do not agree, What it they are right?

            • Fescue says:

              The scientific community is certain about the emerging climate crisis. And they are concerned about the negative impacts that will lead to reduced agricultural yields, mass migration from coastal areas, and much more. The ‘people who may not agree’ have every opportunity to provide evidence to support their hypotheses – they don’t because they can’t. Instead, they manufacture doubt, which hurts us all.

              Worrying about having enough fuel to deliver your next consumer item, or waiting in a drive-through for a coffee will be the least of our concerns.

              If you are worried about having acted when we may not have needed to is impossible to know. If the climate threat is not compelling, then consider that fossil fuels are nonrenwable and we will have to deal with the same issues around energy in the not so distant future anyway. Or, simply, that reducing polluting emissions is good for our health and reduces healthcare costs.

              • phlushie says:

                Fescue, your last paragraph I agree with whole heartedly and is more real than the climate crisis. The World Bank has invested in the Green Energy, which is not proceeding at a rate of return that they wish. In fact the Green energy has proven that is inefficient in producing energy and extremely inefficient in its use of “ALL” resources. In fact I remember the comparioson done in the 1980’s, of a Toyota Prius (Electric Car) with a Hummer H1 (a 4 mile per gallon fuel guzzler). Over their lifetime, it was shown that the Hummer had a lower carbon footprint.
                So, now the World Bank has to rescue their investment by exerting political power on the UN to assure their financila sucess. Boy have we learned alot from tyrants like Hitler, and now each government is trying to disarm their citizens, back like in the early 1930 Europe.
                So , becarful of what you believe, as I am alsocareful of what I beleive and hav learned to distrust people in power that use media to control the population.

  7. IMO says:

    Former Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney, would argue that significant financial risk is associated with climate crisis denial.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-climate-change-envoy-mark-carney-1.5380092?fbclid=IwAR1HRTyOe9uYRW1a719W7Bi9w_38fORbhW26oRZyX8SLueAEMjSJONChnxI


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.