By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: Science used to make the case for global warming is purely political
Placeholder Image

To send a letter to the editor, click here for a form and letters policy or send to letters@
. Please include your full name, hometown and a contact number for confirmation.

Do not accept uncritically the language found in the newly released report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to the United Nations. The project is political in nature, not scientific.

Climate scientist Richard Lindzen at MIT pointed this out, saying, “the IPCC report (and especially the press release accompanying the summary) is a political document. ... With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming.”

Lindzen puts his finger on the point. All of the IPCC models associate continuous temperature increases of the globe with increasing carbon dioxide. However, for nearly two decades, carbon dioxide has continued to increase somewhat, but the globe has not gotten warmer.

Data on global temperatures are correct. They come from the same source as was used to document the previous decade of global warming. Therefore, computer models used by the IPCC are both wrong and misleading.

Scientific honesty and logic would require real scientists to object to the IPCC propaganda; many, like Lindzen, do. The agitation you hear in the media about manmade global warming and climate change is often from people like Joan King, whose recent column spoke sharply of the supposed dangers of global warming. Many of these noisemakers are not climatologists, nor scientists, but they do have a political agenda.

Their agenda is to reduce Western (especially U.S.) culture to a carbonless society. This will greatly increase all energy costs, especially for electricity. This is openly admitted by the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres. A year ago, she said her aim was to “persuade government, private sector, and civil society to (make) the biggest transformation that they have undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation ...” Centralized and deceitful.

The IPCC report calls the past 17 years a “pause,” implying that the warming is going to continue sometime. That is a political statement, not science.

In scientific terms, these 17 years demonstrate a stop to global warming. None of the models used by the IPCC is capable of producing this kind of result. The models were designed to employ a correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming. Now that the warming has stopped, the correlation has gone to zero.

A scientific analysis would be, without correlation, there cannot be causation.

That is one reason China, the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide, will never agree to carbon limitations. Nor will India. Even Australia has backed away from such a damaging agenda.

Leftists like King deserve special skepticism when they are in positions of power and influence, because they will not tell the truth. She is open in her acceptance of the IPCC report, to the point where she quotes a spokesman who implies manmade global warming/climate change is like gravity, 95 percent certain to occur. He says this even as global warming has disappeared.

If we wish to be correct, we will put a stop to this politicized science.

W.T. “Ted” Hinds

Regional events