Climate debate based on fear
To the editor:
Well, well, well. Look at all the global warming Paul Reveres this paper has published recently. Isn’t it interesting that the most adamant that “the science is settled” are the least qualified to say so. One writer makes a nasty personal attack on Peter Wells: a physicist who must, therefore, have a reasonable understanding of the scientific principles of heat transfer: the primary discipline involved in the question. The attack was by one who I believe to be an attorney, publisher and puppeteer. A puppeteer that has a vested financial interest, which he did not disclose, via an organization that he co-chairs, seeking contributions from the very same global warming converts he tries to form with his fire and brimstone.
Another of your readers referred to a PNAS article entitled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change”: presumably that of 2010 contributed by Stephen Schneider. Mr Schneider hails from the Department of Biology at Stanford. His co-authors hail also from that department, the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Note that none of these authors disclose any qualifications in heat transfer.
The thesis of the article is that, because they find that some 97 percent of the articles published by prolific authors on the topic of Global Warming support the notion that it is happening and that mankind is responsible, this proves the notion as fact. That is a preposterously unscientific conclusion. They made no effort to screen out those, like themselves, who lack the scientific credentials to determine if the planet is heating or cooling. Your readers should understand that this “science” has been tainted by greed and political ambition. The relevant scientific disciplines are heat transfer, thermodynamics and astronomy. It’s not tree rings. It’s not hockey sticks.