The article repeats some common errors regarding climate science. I don't wish to argue policy, as I'm not trying to assert a specfic policy toward addressing global warming; rather, I'm interested in the science and sharing what I've learned of the science.
UPDATE: As expected, none of the commenters took me up on my invitation to learn more about the climate science they were disparaging, which is not surprising. It's easier to state their opinions where they don't have to defend their sources or explain their reasoning (or lack of). The pleasant side of these misinformed opinions, like the Press Enterprise editorial above, is that they provide fodder for my astronomy presentations. Not only does the science have intrinsic value, but is also helpful to counter the propoganda and foolishness of many editorials on climate policy.
For example, a recent opinion published in the Califorian (Cult of Global Warming Losing Influence) makes this statement:
If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global warming alarmists would be right. But it's obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.
I added the bold text to the astronomy angle. I'll be looking at the variations of the sun in my next presentation to the Temecula Valley Astronomers.
- Location: Rancho Water District building, 42135 Winchester Rd., Temecula
- Date/Time: 7:30 PM Monday, January 2, 2012
Letters 12/29 (Others' responses)
The editor cut some prose and removed an "or" that was indespensible to the tone of my letter. Here's the letter I meant for publication with omitted parts in bold:
Your 21 December 2011 editorial makes false accusations against climate scientists and then says that these scientist need to work on improving their reputation. The false accusation you make is "The purloined emails of leading climate scientists have shown them manipulating data and suppressing contradictory evidence". Some emails, when removed from their context, look incriminating, and so the following organizations have examined them as well as the research these scientists have contributed to: Pennsylvania State University, University of East Anglia, US Environmental Protection Agency, UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Department of Commerce Inspector General, and the US National Science Foundation.jg
None have found any wrong doing in the public climate science reports, which creates two possibilities: 1) the climate conspiracy includes major universities, the US and UK governments, and the National Science Foundation or [omitted] 2) as said by the National Science Foundation, there has been "no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws ".
It's the Press Enterprise vs. the National Science Foundation on climate. One of you has a credibility problem.