Jan 13

From The Akron Beacon Journal:

If Joseph Ortiz, the Kent State University geology professor who wrote the Dec. 7 letter ”Climate change is beyond denial,” really believes that it is time for a serious discussion regarding climate change, maybe he could start by framing the debate more honestly.

He states that ”the climate-change denier’s logic goes like this: There is evidence of natural climate change; therefore, humans can’t be the cause of the climate change seen in the last 200 years.”

This is as absurd as stating that the climate-change zealot’s logic goes like this: There is evidence that human activity has increased carbon dioxide levels in the past 200 years; therefore, humans must be causing the climate to change. It is a cheap debating tactic to state an opposing view in a weak and unconvincing manner, and then denounce that position as a ”badly flawed conclusion.”

I am an environmental geologist, and I am skeptical of the climate-change hysteria because of the daunting magnitude of variables that influence the impact of chemicals when they are released to our environment. Many of these variables are poorly understood, many others have probably not yet been identified, and the complexity of the interactions on a scale as large as the global climate is almost certainly beyond our current levels of scientific understanding.

It is simply not logical that controlling a single (and miniscule, by volume) variable such as atmospheric carbon dioxide will allow us to bend the entire global climate to our will.

I am also skeptical because models used to predict environmental impact, while useful tools, are prone to calibration problems, manipulation and can produce results with little or no semblance to real-world outcomes.

Finally, I am skeptical because climate change is, contrary to the assertion by Ortiz, a political question at the bottom line.

The proposed solutions currently in search of a global warming problem involve enormous (and likely unachievable) alterations to world economies, drastic changes in lifestyles that most people will simply not accept and a redistribution of wealth that would make the most devout communist giddy.

By all means, Ortiz, continue your good research. We need your contribution to our overall understanding of the climate. But please forgo statements such as the evidence of human-induced climate change is beyond denying — it is not.

Determining when evidence is sufficient and if debate should begin or end on a topic of such universal importance is not the purview of you, Al Gore or the Beacon Journal editorial board.
Jim C. Smith
Wadsworth

15 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

6 Responses to “Scientist’s Letter to the Editor: ‘It is simply not logical that controlling a single (and miniscule, by volume) variable such as atmospheric CO2 will allow us to bend the entire global climate to our will’”

  1. Klem says:

    I am always amazed at the number of geologists who are on the side of climate change skepticism. And rightly so, they have some knowledge of how the planet works and are accusomed to dealing huge time and spacial frames. I find that astronomers also tend toward the skeptic side, I think becuase they too are accustomed to dealing with huge time and spacial frames. Envrinomnetalists and the general public think that 30 years is a long time, that 150 years is a long time or that 800,000 years of glacial ice-core history is a long time. Or that a bit of glacial sublimation in the antarctic proves the planet is being damaged by human activity. These things are really nothing.

    Thanks. Keep up the debate.

       0 likes

    • Matt says:

      Well said, and 100% correct…little more than 30 years ago these same people were convinced we’d be a solid block of ice by now.

         0 likes

      • Klockarman says:

        Yes, I also had noticed that geologists seemed to be more skeptical of AGW.

        And Matt, you are correct that “30 years ago these same people were convinced we’d be a solid block of ice by now”. In fact, here’s a post I did a few months back that features video of global warming alarmist extraordinaire Stephen Schneider appearing on the Leonard Nimoy hosted documentary “In Search of…” in 1978 (heh, 31 years ago). On this episode, the subject was “In Search of…The Coming Ice Age”.

        http://algorelied.com/?p=2839

        It’s this blog’s #3 all-time most popular post!

        Thanks for reading, and for your comments.

           0 likes

  2. nofreewind says:

    Good point Klem. Here is the proof of your hypothesis.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGquwwoQfVY

    A questions and answer session at a major Geology conference.
    “models produced by very clever people with good intentions”.

       0 likes

  3. SteveCase says:

    There are several things that must be shown to be true before any action be taken:

    1. It must be shown that a warmer world is a problem. This will be difficult because by most measures, the reverse would be true. After all, where do most people go on vacation? Where is most of our food grown? Warmer climates, that’s where.

    2. There needs to be proof that computer models are capable of accurately predicting temperature and precipitation patterns 100 years from now.

    3. It must be shown that reducing anthropogenic CO2 will actually lower world temperature by a significant amount.

    4. It must be shown that CO2 reduction goals are economically sound and can be achieved.

    All of the above four points must be demonstrably true before any government action be taken.

       0 likes

  4. peter says:

    Here is the reason for it all and why Gore lied:

    Eighteenth-century German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel long ago developed, among other things, what he called the principle of “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” to explain the process of deliberately enacted social disorder and change as a road to power. To achieve a desired result, one deliberately creates a situation (“thesis,”) devises a “solution,” to solve the “problems” created by that situation (“antithesis,”) with the final result being the ultimate goal of more power and control (“synthesis.”) It is unsurprising Karl Marx and his disciples like Lenin and Trotsky, as well as the US government in its so-called War On Drugs, made this process a keystone of their drive for total control of all individual actions that, in their views, were not, in Mussolini s terms, “inside the state” and thus controllable by the same.- Mike Kreka – Lew Rockwell.com (Mike was shot and killed by police shortly after)

       0 likes

preload preload preload