I caught up on my saved U-B’s after enjoying two weeks in the beautiful Florida Keys watching fishes (scuba diving), munching on conch fritters and sunning on lovely beaches. (I mention that only to give testimony that the Keys are still above water — not covered by rising seas as predicted by Al Gore, et al.)
I was there in December 1989 and the barrier reef sea life is still prolific as ever (like those Arctic polar bears) despite hysterical warnings that my SUV and burning fossil fuels cause catastrophic sea rise, acidic oceans, bleaching corals (and melting icecaps).
Richard McFarland (in his June 17 letter to the editor) and Monette Hoffmeister (on June 20) criticized my letter about atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen. Of course, and as usual, my detractors never offer actual scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions cause problematic climate change so instead, the old ad hominem approach is applied to me or one of my many sources like Professor Lindzen. Or they simply refer to “the majority of the science community consensus” regarding anthropogenic global warming.
The problem here is that scientific evidence (about this or any other issue) isn’t decided by head count. Or by rote.
Hoffmeister might be right that, I “lack the specialized (formal) education necessary to evaluate the research on climate change.” However, I’ve been studying this on my own dime for a dozen years. Those asserting beyond doubt that human CO2 emissions are dangerously warming this planet are wrong.
McFarland wrote, “ ... I worry about those readers who want to believe everything they read without doing their own ‘due diligence’ regarding fact checking.”
Quoting Wikipedia is “due diligence?” Now, that’s something to worry about. Wikipedia can be a useful tool but the info is far from solid and can be input and/or edited by anyone with a biased agenda.
Sure, some scientists disagree with Lindzen. Especially when his findings refute theirs. Study possible motives for that disagreement. McFarland mentioned Christopher Bretherton’s criticism of Lindzen but not a certain $390 million tax-funded grant enjoyed by a group with which he is associated (check The cloudiness of Chris Bretherton’s ‘intellectual honesty).
When money and politics corrupt science much study and research is needed to seek out the truth. That’s what I do.
“Due diligence” isn’t checking Wikipedia. I’ve written many letters pointing to the science refuting anthropogenic global warming/climate change and so far that science has not been challenged with any credible evidence. By anyone.