My latest letter to the editor (climate related)

[steveyo]

Today, the Times Union (Albany, NY newspaper) published my letter to the editor. If you don't read anything else, skip down to the part of my letter which I've bolded.

Mine was in response to this other guy's letter:

Originally Posted by April 17 letter from another guy

With an exquisite sense of timing, the U.N. releases a report on human-induced global warming just as large sections of the United States are experiencing yet another week of record-breaking cold. Particularly amusing was the reference to spring arriving earlier, while millions were shoveling snow on Sunday.
But, of course, weather events such as this one are attributable to global warming, and I have already heard one solemn-faced newscaster report that as fact.
As she always does, Mother Nature will -- somewhere down the line -- bring us a run of record-breaking warmth, which will neatly balance the temperature equation. That, too, will be caused by global warming. I strongly suggest that anyone who wishes to see through the hype of "global warming" read "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.
And, for the record, they are not in the pay of the oil companies.
MICHAEL L. NARDACCI

Well, when I read that I was inspired to write this (link):

Here's the text of my letter:

Originally Posted by my April 27 letter

In an April 17, letter, Michael Nardacci claims April's cold weather and snowstorms are evidence against global warming.

Global warming isn't going to make every day hot from now on. However, it can cause wildly erratic weather, such as Hurricane Katrina and last year's record heat waves around the globe. We've witnessed record-setting heat last winter, a 12-foot snowstorm in western New York and this April's cold and floods.

There were 928 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. (Peer-review is where other experts in the field review and verify articles). None -- not one article -- disagreed with the premise that current warming trends are caused or worsened by human activities.

Every major scientific association has issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Mr. Nardacci suggests a book by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery to help us "see through the hype of 'global warming,' " adding that the authors are not in the pay of oil companies. Sorry, incorrect. Firstly, neither author has managed to publish on the topic of climate change in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Further, Singer consulted for the oil industry in the 1980s. In 1998, ExxonMobil gave $10,000 to Singer's institute, the SEPP, and another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which promotes Singer's work. Singer also works for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, an anti-environmental group funded by ExxonMobil, among others, according to The Wall Street Journal. Avery works at the Hudson Institute and is on the advisory panel for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Both the Hudson Institute and the ACSH are corporate-funded, including funding by ExxonMobil.

Should we believe a few corporate-funded "experts," or all the other scientists in the world?

STEVE RELLES

[Gilby]

As I mentioned in another post, 75% of those articles acknowledged that view, some explicitly and some implicitly.

Apparently not very many were explicit, according to Benny Peiser:

Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by steveyo

Mine was in response to this other guy's letter:

If hard science can't convince people that evolution may be responsible for our existence, it surely won't sway people's opinion on something as trifling as global warming.

[thejdw]

There are no facts involved in glowbal warming

[steveyo]

Originally Posted by thejdw

There are no facts involved in glowbal warming

...except the odd drowned polar bear.

[James_Potter]

Originally Posted by thejdw

There are no facts involved in glowbal warming

Yeah right look at this:


...seriously though, look at this one....

[timbob1907]

Originally Posted by thejdw

There are no facts involved in glowbal warming

Well thats good. I was getting worried about that glow ball getting too hot. Now we just have to fix global warming and we'll be set. Feel free to try to disprove it but it is happening. Just stay in your air conditioned house and you'll be fine right?

[monkeyman]

Steve, I don't really think you can argue that consensus among scientists means it's correct. This seems like a cop-out argument, but scientists agreed the Earth revolved around the sun too. And I've read too many stories to just dismiss it of scientists getting their funding pulled for daring to question global warming.

Thank you for calling him out on the "it was cold yesterday, so global warming doesn't exist" crap, though. That is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

[monkeyman]

Steve, I don't really think you can argue that consensus among scientists means it's correct. This seems like a cop-out argument, but scientists agreed the Earth revolved around the sun too. And I've read too many stories to just dismiss it of scientists getting their funding pulled for daring to question global warming.

Thank you for calling him out on the "it was cold yesterday, so global warming doesn't exist" crap, though. That is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

So how often do you write to the paper, Steve?

[steveyo]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Steve, I don't really think you can argue that consensus among scientists means it's correct. This seems like a cop-out argument, but scientists agreed the Earth revolved around the sun too. And I've read too many stories to just dismiss it of scientists getting their funding pulled for daring to question global warming.

Thank you for calling him out on the "it was cold yesterday, so global warming doesn't exist" crap, though. That is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

So how often do you write to the paper, Steve?

Um...the earth does revolve around the sun.

In the last few years, I've written a few dozen letters to the editor, with maybe a couple dozen published.

[Brian MacKenzie]

Originally Posted by steveyo

Um...the earth does revolve around the sun.

you'll believe anything scientists say!

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by steveyo

Um...the earth does revolve around the sun.

In the last few years, I've written a few dozen letters to the editor, with maybe a couple dozen published.

er....*sun revolved around the Earth.

Oops.

[Gilby]

The sun revolves around the earth, AND the earth revolves around the sun. It's all about the reference point. From the reference point of the entire universe, they both revolve around each other.

[James_Potter]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

er....*sun revolved around the Earth.
Oops.

Back then it was because the Catholic church decided everything, and scientists didn't really have tools to accurately gauge these things. But then Galileo came along and invented the telescope, or he improved it or something, and did a bunch of other crazy scientific stuff and figured out the truth. So as you can see, with new scientific developments, we can actually figure out the true nature of...nature, instead of just relying on faith.

[thefish]

I recently attended a lecture by Michael Crichton and have seen a few interviews with him, and he has some interesting points. He believes that science is becoming less science and more politics. Here is an interesting interview from the Charlie Rose show. It's an hour long, but is very interesting. It's not all global warming; there's a decent bit about gene patenting and some other things in there.