The following is my weekly letter to our local weekly newspaper, the Independent Coastal Observer (ICO):
A local natural climate change denier (NCCD) assured ICO readers that she knew what I
would write before I wrote it, just as I knew that natural climate change
deniers would attack people or organizations, but not use science. Another (NCCD) erroneously wrote that I get my facts from the Heartland Institute, but he is
“hoist on his own petard.” Had he actually followed the “tinyurl” links I provide
in my letters, he would find them linked to peer-reviewed studies. In fact, in
my last letter I linked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Chapter12, Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report), in
which the IPCC admit their climate alarmism is very unlikely.
About their report I wrote: “Alarmists also ignore the
IPCC’s own low-probability estimates for climate change catastrophes. The IPCC
now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is
‘very unlikely,’ ice sheet collapse is ‘exceptionally unlikely,’ and
catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is ‘very
unlikely.’”
Of all the scientific studies I reference I put the least
confidence in the IPCC’s. Although the chairman of the IPCC has stated
repeatedly that its report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature, a check
of all 18,531 references in the 2007 report found that 5,587 (30%) were not peer-reviewed. The most egregious of the 2007 report’s
“grey literature” (non-peer-reviewed studies) was the thoroughly debunked prediction
that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, based on an interview
published in 2000 in New Scientist
(Christian Science Monitor).
The NCCD concluded his letter by requesting I “use and
cite only non-biased sources.” Sorry, Mr. NCCD, I‘ll continue to use IPCC and
governmental records (less hurricanes, tornados, and droughts; flat global temperature;
slower sea-level rise and glacier retreat), even though they are biased, whenever
they contradict alarmism.
Wouldn’t you?
No comments:
Post a Comment