|
 Responding to John Bullard's April 24 view,
although I am not the president of a Sea Education Association, I am
indeed an environmental conservationist. My automobile (endorsed by the
Sierra Club) and my home stand as my evidence. My trash consists of one
small bag weekly, often bi-weekly, but my recycling bins are always
full. While this doesn't make me a scientist, it does show I care for
our environment.
Not being a scientist and
caring for our environment doesn't preclude an average person from
being able to think or know when they are being deceived.
As stated previously, I believe we should take care of the environment because it's the right thing to do.
I
believe that climate change science is driven by ideology and not the
study of long-term cycles. Mr. Bullard repeated my claim that global
warming is based on 20 years of data and that warming and cooling is
cyclical, but he omitted my "due to human action," which is an
important clarifier. The question about global warming is if
human-created carbons are at fault. Mr. Bullard says, "Mauna Loa
records of CO2 concentrations go back over 50 years; ice cores go back
about a million." If his claim is true, then what caused the cyclical
behavior he admits is evident in the ice cores over the past million
years — humans?
The global warming (due to
the human-created carbons) issue and "scientific censorship" is claimed
by many global authorities. To comply with Mr. Bullard's request for
evidence, I put it forth here, albeit there are far too many to note
them all.
As to the ice cores going back a
million years, they may go back even further. However, it's important
to note that the ice cores are not the vital factor, rather the records
for measuring ice core lengths and the conclusions drawn on those
samples are what is important, and these records are fairly recent.
Various ice cores of varying depths have been drilled only since 1956,
and the first ice core to reach bedrock was drilled in 1966.
Many
respected scientists around the globe claim that until 1985, published
CO2 readings were published correctly, but after 1985 certain readings
disappeared from publication. That's 23 years of censorship and skewed
study.
In fact, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal
research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, formerly
a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center, says, "For those scientists who value their scientific
reputations, I would advise that they distance themselves from
politically motivated claims of a 'scientific consensus' on the causes
of global warming. ... Don't let five Norwegians on the Nobel Prize
committee be the arbiters of what is good science." Good science is
exactly what I am promoting!
Likewise,
Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, who spoke to
the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in
2004 said, "Attempts to support the global warming thesis with analyses
of the carbon dioxide content in glacial ice samples are based on
fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes of glacial ice
formation."
The point here is that there are
too many reliable scientific sources claiming censorship in climate
science for us to say with any confidence that humans are responsible.
In fact, even those scientists who claim global warming as fact have
admitted the data isn't challenged in peer-reviewed scientific
literature. I have a problem with that, and you should too.
If
we are living in a climate that is unprecedented in all of human
history and, as Mr. Bullard says, "the wonderful thing about science is
the more we expand €¦ knowledge, the greater the €¦ area between the
known and unknown," then shouldn't the debate include all the data so
we are not acting on conclusions that are based on ideology and
politics?
Mr. Bullard says "prudent people
wouldn't delay acting," and on this we can agree. Prudent people should
indeed act responsibly by demanding fair and full consideration of all
the facts, using a healthy measure of scientific skepticism, and not
reacting on fears created by a false scientific consensus. Source
|
