Credentials of climate change deniers should be examined
By Lethbridge Herald on September 24, 2022.
Editor:
Re “There needs to be room for debate in the climate discussion” (Sept.14).
To begin on an observational, but largely unscientific note: There certainly seems to have been an increase in “once in a century” weather disasters in recent years. Massive floods, fires, droughts, and deadly heat waves – and all on a global basis. This is pretty much as the climate models have predicted.
So when a person or group makes a statement such as “there is no climate emergency,” you have to wonder what’s prompting such self-assuredness on their part.
Are these commentators acting – as researchers should – by evaluating the evidence impartially based on the results of their and others’ observations?
I think it’s important to consider the credentials of such commentators: Are they involved in climate research? Have they done any recent research in this field? If so, has their work been published in reputable scientific journals? Has their research been peer reviewed? From where are they receiving their financial support? Until these questions have been answered, it’s best to take their pronouncements with a grain of salt.
As to the notion that further debate is needed, I think it’s true: Vigourous debate is needed into best practices and mitigation strategies as we go forward in this new climate regime. But the notion that “more debate is needed before we can really be sure that global warming is 100 per cent real” has been the mantra, for decades, of those whose intent is to instill doubt.
Their goal is to make us feel that “since the issue isn’t really settled after all, “we can just ignore it and go about our business. It’s a strategy used by the tobacco companies back when the research was becoming increasingly certain that smoking caused lung cancer and other illnesses.
Interestingly, some of the individuals involved in that misinformation campaign have gone on to employ the same technique to sew doubt about climate change. It works well but, as time and the increasing weight of research show us, it doesn’t work forever.
Ron Fazio
Lethbridge
12-11
Usually an emergency needs to be dealt with immediately. What do you suggest. Starve people to death to reduce the population (nitrogen fertilizer), tax everyone into poverty (carbon taxes) reduce the use of fossil fuels (quickest way to increase poverty). The are multitudes of well known “critical thinkers” who oppose what you may have to say. The old “denier” charge is getting old. No one disagrees that the climate does change. Why just this past week it was 2degrees C at 6 in the morning. When I returned home around 9 it was now 11 degrees C. Must have been all those SUV’s going past the house spewing CO2 on the way to work. (Sarc). You need to read some of the predictions of the likes of Al Gore, etc. Why did Obama buy an 8 million dollar mansion in Martha’s Vineyard steps from those 20 foot rising sea levels. Think critically, you’ve been had.
Here is a link to Richard Lindzen, professor at MIT. You may want to critique him.
https://youtu.be/pwvVephTIHU
Making it painfully obvious that you have no idea what the difference is between climate and weather , then citing someone known to take funds from big oil and coal , whose other most public position is lung cancer has nothing to do with cigarette smoking doesn’t hold well for your “critical thinking”.
Excellent point. It’s hard to take anyone’s view on climate change seriously if they don’t know something so basic as the difference between weather and climate.
So while the oil industry has known for years that Global Warming is a real problem these mindless phony conservatives, Reformers, and their ignorant supporters have been telling the world that they don’t give a damn about it and have no intention of doing anything about it and their supporters like buckwheat believes every lie he is told. He refuses to believe the truth, he can’t handle it, he isn’t man enough. When the oil industry has tried to do something about it they have been attacked by these fools and their supporters who don’t care. Maybe buckwheat and the rest of these fools should google this.
“What Big Oil Industry Knew About Climate Change In It’s Own Words”
When you have idiots like Jason Kenney trying to destroy the Carbon Tax that Oil Executives wanted implemented, because they know it works, telling his mindless supporters that it’s going to financially destroy them and them dumb enough to believe it you know you have a problem .
How do you define “big oil”? Is there a “small oil”? What if the oil industry is only providing what is in demand? Try taking away the demand, see where that leaves you.
I suspect that FC defines “Big Oil” the same way most people do, namely the handful of the largest publicly-traded oil and natural gas companies in the World. As the term is conventionally used, “Big Oil” does not include state-owned companies such as Saudi Aramcoor Petro China.
As usual FC your mindless bibble-babbling only enhances what we know already about you! Let’s talk about what bigoil has done for us over the years and how it has raised our standard of living. Ok FC I guess not!
Ron how can you even begin to compare what the tobacco industry was to a branch of science that is not even close to being settled? There is so many variables with our climate no one side seems to get it completely right.
Hope you are still taking your Meds FC!
Taxes work. Mindless babble.
I just had a pothole filled on my street. Gee, I wonder how that was paid for?
I need to know how you got that done, please.
The difficulty is the evidence cannot define what amount of warming is attributable to CO2 emissions, the claims of catastrophe dating back to the 70’s fail to materialize, we’ve actually only had about 1 degree of warming since the use of fossil fuels began (150 years ago) and we are fine, the benefits of hydrocarbons far out way the risks, and unless environmentalists actually adopt use of nuclear and natural gas, they actually do not care about the environment.
While it is the case that average global temperatures have increase by 1 degree C since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, which actually dates from about 1750, you need to remember that we are dealing with an average value over a very large area, and there is a spread around that figure. For instance, climate data from the US NOAA show the average temperature in Southwestern California for the period 2000 to 2020 was 2.2 degrees C above the 1895-2020 average.
That would help explain the long-term drought in the region! But that’s okay ‘cause we are doing fine apart from the higher prices we are paying for California produce.
And those fleeing California’s high prices and looney government are moving to places like Texas which is hotter. Self-induced climate change I guess.
Actually, Red Neck was referring to price increases for fruits and vegetables from California, which are due in large part to lower yields and higher production costs, which in turn are due in large part to drought conditions.
As for the inter-state migration from CA to TX, a recent study conducted by Cullum Clark from Southern Methodist University found the main driver was a search for more affordable real estate and employment. Clark found virtually no evidence that differences in social policies was a meaningful driver.
Things are getting better. You just never see it in the headlines. Here’s a short video showing that many climate catastrophe claims are debunked by scientific evidence: https://youtu.be/UJ1xaRjNUAE And if people prefer the long version with a slow read, here it is. https://youtu.be/D7RxESmRQ-0 People should recognize that climate is a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary field of study. There is no singular ‘climate scientist’ who knows all these fields. Thus, Dr. Nir Shaviv explains that climate is affected by things outside Earth’s atmosphere… so you also need astrophysicists. https://youtu.be/Vlp0PAVRV-k?list=PLZcRTdbkGEnGSXiJkTXu1xTcnSXuurd79 He has a number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic. As for tobacco and smoking, King James I dealt with that in 1603. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/blaste.html
Here is a critical assessment of the IPCC’s theory of global warming. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf?mc_cid=d5f95de4d7&mc_eid=7679c5335e Dr. Lindzen has impeccable credentials. This is a reading of a joint paper by Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy on the Global Mean Average Temperature and why that is a faulty method of determining public policy. https://youtu.be/vpieaeTxN7I Here is the paper for those who prefer reading. https://co2coalition.org/publications/the-global-mean-temperature-anomaly-record/