Climate-change proponent left questions unanswered
February 28, 2014 12:23 AM | 1690 views | 3 3 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

When I saw “Scientific Illiteracy” in the headline for Ryan Bays’ letter in Wednesday’s MDJ, I looked forward to getting more science-based information with which I could develop an informed judgment on climate-change.

I was disappointed.

What Mr. Bays’ letter demonstrates is his excellent vocabulary, but no information with which he refutes any of the “deniers’” points.

Until Bays can explain how 17 years with no increase in overall global temperatures fits the “current understanding of climate change,” he should, at least, reserve judgment.

Mr. Bays also might find it interesting to look into how many of the most vocal advocates with Ph.D.’s in climate science have their funding grants from entities that benefit from the perception that climate change is caused by mankind.

Ken Lowman

Marietta
Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
CobbCoGuy
|
February 28, 2014
Google is your friend. See...

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D., before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, dated February 25, 2014.
CobbCoGuy
|
February 28, 2014
This just in.

See the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, "Crime, weather and climate change", by Matthew Ranson.

A sentence from the Abstract:

"The results show that temperature has a strong positive effect on criminal behavior [WHAT?!?!?!?}, with little evidence of lagged impacts. Between 2010 and 2099 [He's extrapolating 85 years?!?!?! REALLY?!?!?], climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States."

Temperature influences crime? Will someone instruct this "researcher" that a strong correlation does not imply cause and effect.

Climate modeling [facepalm].

The desperation of the climateers is mind-blowing.

No, wait, let's ponder this for a moment. This kind of crime-run-amok makes a good case for our 2nd Amendment rights! Yeah, that's it.

R.L. Bays
|
February 28, 2014
Hi Ken,

Let me give you an analogy. If you found a tumor and visited 100 oncologists, and 97 of them said yes, you have cancer and should begin treatment right away, while 3 of them said no, you were fine, how much more research would you need in order to come to an informed judgment on your condition and next steps?

As for refuting climate change denialists' points, I would first invite you to look at the scientific literature to find their valid countervailing research. If you can find it, then I'll be happy to factor their findings in to my assessment.

PS. There are already some good studies that explain the role of oceanic heat absorption, La Nina/El Nino, and volcanic activity as factors for the recent slow down of rising surface air temps. Keep in mind, global mean temp (air, surface, and ocean) has not reversed over the last 17 years.

Don't get caught off guard by specious claims. Here's an excellent resource that will help you wade through the political subterfuge and get you to what science has to say. Thanks for your feedback!

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides