Human-caused climate change can’t be proven?


On June 10, a U-B front-pager read, “Pollution on a ‘dangerous trajectory’” citing an International Energy Agency report that mirrored typical apocalyptic human-caused climate change nonsense as often dispensed by the (also politically-motivated) UN/IPCC.

In it, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol declared that global human emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use will increase temperatures as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit — “a disaster for all countries.”


On May 24, Denny Sedam in a letter to the editor (What if climate change really is bad?) criticized Gary Troyer’s excellent letter (Government grants do harm to science, May 10), saying “the real scientific community overwhelmingly believe (climate change) is primarily caused by human activities” and “although it can’t be proven, this is what the evidence shows.”

What evidence? There’s no evidence. That’s exactly why human-caused climate change or global warming can’t be proven!

Richard S. Lindzen is a “real” scientist. In fact, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world.

A Ph.D in applied mathematics from Harvard and past professor there and at the University of Chicago, he is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, member of the National Academy of Sciences, member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and distinguished visiting scientist at Cal Tech’s Jet Propulsion Lab. He is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards and American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal. He’s authored or co-authored over 200 scholarly papers and books.

Lindzen argued in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Climate of Fear” that “It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Anyone who believes human CO2 emissions affect climate should read Lindzen’s November 17, 2010, testimony at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology, “A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”

Lindzen writes, “Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.”

Nor does evidence from Climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

Steve Singleton

Walla Walla


fatherof5 2 years, 2 months ago

From Yale's website: "A new report by Cook et al. (2013) examined nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers in the climate science literature; the analysis found that 97% of the papers that stated a position on the reality of human-caused global warming said that global warming is happening and human-caused, at least in part. By contrast, only 41% of Americans say global warming is happening and human-caused."

Yet the author of a letter in Walla Walla's Union Bulletin disagrees with those 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists, as does Richard Lindzen, who has been debunked here and who, to his credit, is one of a very small number of dissenting scientists not on the payroll of the coal/oil industries.

With whom should I agree: Virtually all scientists everywhere? Or these other two people?


namvet60 2 years, 2 months ago

If these scientists are so factual why is everything based on theories and hypotheticals? Why are the weather reports re-evaluated every other day? Why aren't these peer-reviewed papers guaranteed instead of speculation? It's always nice to predict a weather event but when it never happens nobody defends why they predicted that outcome or if the event never happened as they have predicted. Speculation is one thing but to state facts of such is a misnomer.


stvsngltn 2 years, 2 months ago

That 97% figure itself has been DEBUNKED! Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, Father of 5 ... scientist or not. I'm currently logged in from a small resort on Islamorada in the Florida Keys but rest assured when I get back I'll be more specific about that faulty 97% figure. Hey guess what....? I was here in the Keys about 20 years ago and they are still above water. I guess Al Gore and his "warmist" alarmists can put that in their pipes and smoke it. Thanks, Namvet60. Sign me Steve, father of 1 plus two stepdaughters.


Kevconpat 2 years, 2 months ago

Thanks for the insight, fatherof5. As a Father of 'one', Amanda, who is 37 years old and along with my two grandchildren........ It is obvious to me that 6-7 billion people must be putting a small bit into the global warming scenario. Why do some people fight this tooth and nail? You now, we are part of the natural cycle which with all the other earthly natural cycles are adding to climate, global change/warming. Why so adamant against reality? Really.......I just can't figure you guys out. Sigh. Do you detest those who are moderate and reasonable. Yeah, right........


stvsngltn 2 years, 2 months ago

I love moderate and reasonable, kevconpat. However, it's neither moderate nor reasonable to spend billions of dollars (maybe trillions) trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist -- man's output of CO2. Not only that but steal away the chance for poor "third world" peoples a chance at bettering their own lives and civilizations by taking away their ability to burn so-called fossil fuels over a frivolous pipedream called solar and wind energies. Even doubling the current 390 PPM of atmospheric co2 wouldn't hurt anything and in fact would probably help the planet -- plants FEED on carbon dioxide ... and it might even help stave off the next ice age if we're lucky. The catastrophic AGW scam is just that -- a phony scam.


stvsngltn 2 years, 2 months ago

Many legitimate climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic co2 may increase GG warming by a minute degree -- BUT not signific enough to warm the planet noticeably much less cause catastrophic climate change. Wanted to add that to my last note. The real significant GG of course is water vapor -- some 95% of it ... and man's output of co2 is just a very tiny fraction of the remaining 5%. The only thing upon which scientists base the AGW issue upon is computer models -- which have been shown as faulty. Faulty computer models are not evidence by any stretch of the imagination.


Igor 2 years, 2 months ago

Excellent letter! I have only one question for the true believers. If anthropogenic global warming is real then why have temperatures remained flat the past 15 years despite huge amounts of man produced C02 having been dumped into the atmosphere during the same period of time? All of the models predicted that the temperature of the earth would rise significantly over the last 15 years but the simple fact is that it has not. What are we to make of this? The logical explanation is that the models were wrong.


stvsngltn 2 years, 2 months ago

Very good point, Igor and thanks. Of course the "true believers" (and those who know better but are making too much money from grants, books, wind farms, solar industry, political power, etc. ) will say something along the line that Pinatubo and other volcanic activity has slowed down the warming and thereby counteracted the effect of increased co2. Of course that's phony ... but whatever works to continue the lie will be done. Like the re-definition of global warming to climate change .... so they can say with a straight face that harsh winters and record snowfalls in Europe and Asia are actually caused by ..... global warming. Go figure.


Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in