Letters to the Editor
Tom Harris
Published Letters: 3
-
Climate change unrelated to and coal use
[Read the article: In coal blood]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Coal-fired electricity generation is under constant attack because of its carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse gas most focused on by the United Nations and Al Gore and his newly minted climate missionaries. This is a serious mistake. Modern science shows that human carbon dioxide emissions are of little or no concern. The reasons are simple:
1 - carbon dioxide not pollution - indeed it is the staff of life without which there would be no life on the planet. Plants evolved at a time when carbon dioxide levels were much higher - they are CO2 starved now.
2 - carbon dioxide is not a major climate driver. Other, mostly natural factors are far more significant.
When Mr. Gore claims that the science is settled and "experts agree" that we are causing catastrophic climate change, he is dangerously wrong, and I think he knows it. The causes of climate change are a subject of intense debate in the climate science community and the consensus that so many point to is simply an urban legend.
There are tens of thousands of scientists working in the climate field. The only meaningful poll I am aware of shows a wide diversity of opinion among experts. Like the global warming hypothesis itself, it is the proponents of a hypothesis that must supply evidence to support their beliefs and, so far, no one has done this with the "consensus" argument. It is just said because it is popular and often said. That's not good enough when Gore's error-riddled film, An Inconvenient Truth, has now been introduced into the school curriculum throughout the English speaking world and we are about to spend yet more billions on the vain attempt to alter our planet's climate.
In the meantime, the world urgently needs coal. Alternatives such as wind and solar power are too diffuse and intermittent to put a dent in the energy demands easily satisfied by coal.
We must continue to work to improve mine safety of course, as well as continuing to remove real pollutants when we burn coal. But ramping back an increasingly clean power source that is abundant in western countries would be absurd. That the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has enough to last for hundreds of years should be a cause for celebration, not distress.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada
-
subject of the above letter should be "Climate change unrelated to coal use"
[Read the article: In coal blood]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sorry about the typo.
Tom
-
UN scientists really don't believe what we are told they believe
[Read the article: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
The UN Climate Agency’s implication that 2,500 scientist reviewers agree with its report is a deception. In reality, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is a topic of intense debate within the scientific community and forecasts of future change are even less certain.
Unlike when past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) reports were issued, we now know that many IPCC scientists are very aware of this controversy as well. This year, for the first time ever, the UN revealed on the Web the feedback from their official “scientific expert reviewers” (and IPCC editors' responses) concerning the drafts of the report of Working Group I, the body assigned to address the causes of past climate change and possible future trajectories. An examination of this feedback debunks the notion of high level of agreement among IPCC expert reviewers.
Take for example, the frequent assertion that ‘2500 scientists of the IPCC’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the whole 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR):
“Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
Here’s what Australian climate data analyst, John McLean found when he examined the scientists’ reviews now finally made public:
- Of the 2500 reviewers, only 62 reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical Chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (Working Group I of the FAR);
- Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC bureaucrats;
- Of the 62 scientist reviewers of this chapter, the majority had serious vested interest. Only seven scientist reviewers without vested interests are known to have reviewed this chapter.
Of the seven truly independent Official IPCC Reviewers of Chapter 9, two were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this letter - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained "A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC Working Group I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed." Dr. Gray labeled the Working Group I statement as "Typical IPCC doubletalk" asserting "The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model."
Their comments indicate that at most five independent scientist reviewers agree with this, likely the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year.
Yet in Saturday’s presentation, IPCC Chairman Dr. R. K. Pachauri included a slide in which he listed “+2500 scientific expert reviewers” implying that this group agree with the report’s conclusions.
“We now know that this is a deception,” explains Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “The IPCC owe it to the world to explain what these numbers really mean and who, among their experts agree with their conclusions and who don’t. Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”
It is clearly time the media and the public started looking behind the curtain concerning the IPCC.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada