- The Enterprise
- The Recorder
This is in response to the Friday, Nov. 9, letter in The Calvert Recorder from Peter Vogt titled “Climate change skeptics cannot deny science.” It is troubling, and a disservice to the readers of this newspaper, that in his Kool-Aid to “climate science deniers,” a highly credentialed individual promotes in these pages an unbalanced, unsubstantiated opinion without the backing of any authoritative sources, hoping, we suppose, that readers impressed with his credentials in an unrelated field take his word as authoritative. Equally troubling is Vogt’s superficiality of thinking, demonstrated by his reference to those who probably have a lot more basic knowledge of the global warming/climate change “science” than he does, as “deniers.” Some of us who followed this subject for more than 30 years are quite skeptical about the claims made by “believers” like Vogt.
Vogt is correct in saying that the world has warmed over the last 100 to 150 years. We don’t think anyone denies that. However, the claim that this warming is unprecedented is not correct. There is considerable recent data indicating that during the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 A.D.), global temperatures were at least equivalent to those of today. Vogt’s second statement, that the ever-increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, is the primary reason for this change, has no real scientific basis to support this conclusion.
He mentions that basic research methodology is basically no different for climate science as it is for other kinds of science. We wish that was true. When we did scientific work, the standard approach was: analyze data from the system or process; develop a theory (described as a model of some type); and test the theory by running a controlled experiment. If the experiment gave results similar to those predicted by the model, your theory was considered valid. Since it is impossible to run experiments of this type on the Earth’s temperature and climate, those involved in climate research have resorted to developing sophisticated computer models to describe the Earth’s temperature response to variables of interest — particularly, to carbon dioxide. And, as all scientists know, the output of a computer program is a prediction, not a fact. The poor performance of these computer models to predict global temperatures, particularly in the last 20 years, has created much angst. And the “Climategate” email scandal gave strong evidence of concern about the lack of predictability of both sea and atmospheric temperatures.
Vogt makes the statement that “most scientists would rather be right than rich.” We wonder if he has data to back that up. It has been our experience in dealing with scientists, particularly at the university level, that they seem to be obsessed with finding ways to get grant money. The global warming/climate change question has been a veritable bonanza for them. The statement that few would flush their scientific credibility down the toilet by faking or withholding important but “inconvenient” data is without merit. Vogt should read A. W. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion,” and see if he could still say that with a straight face. The statement that scientists don’t get funded to prove the Earth is warming (and, by the way, that this warming is caused by burning fossil fuels), contradicts the driving force behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agenda.
Vogt particularly reveals his lack of knowledge when he doubts there are other ways that could cause the earth to warm (and also cool). We would refer him to the work of Joe Bast, who has published “Seven Theories of Climate Change.” There are also many “deniers” who are continually publishing works that cast great doubt on the accuracy of the computer-based predictions. Of particular interest is the work of Henrik Svensmark, who has developed (and partially proven) the theory that a major factor influencing the Earth’s temperature is cosmic rays. One study has shown a 79 percent correlation with cosmic ray concentration and global temperatures over the last 150 years. In the same study, the correlation with carbon dioxide was a mere 22 percent. We could go on and on, but it appears Vogt has no idea of what he doesn’t know, and in passing himself off as a knowledgeable scientist, he is doing an equally effective job of deceiving people, even though we are sure he has the best of intentions, like most of the elites.
Engineer and business executive Steve Goreham has written a recently published book titled “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.” Goreham defines “Climatism” as the belief that manmade greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. He writes 281 pages of cogent analysis based on real data that seriously challenges the carbon dioxide theory and clearly points out the absurdity of worldwide energy policies with the following conclusion: “The tragedy of Climatism is a misuse of resources on a vast scale. The world spent $243 billion dollars in 2010 on renewable energy to try to ‘decarbonize’ energy systems. More than $1 trillion was spent over the last  years, and governments and industries are on pace to waste another $1 trillion in the next four years on foolish climate programs. Imagine the benefits to the world’s poor if decarbonization expenditures could be redirected to solve the problems of hunger, disease, and poverty.” Journalists, environmental activists and politicians, as well as the general public, would benefit greatly from reading “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.”
Donald J. Koestler, Dunkirk
Andrew H. Jazwinski, Dunkirk