LETTER: Ms. Weiss Should Reconsider Her Position on Climate Issues
After reading the response from reader Judy Weiss to the thoughtful op-ed piece by Tom Harris, it became even more apparent how little she, and others following her patter, really understand about our constantly changing climate.
In her diatribe, she berates Tom Harris because he is not a climate scientist. This is interesting considering the past and disgraced Rajendra Pachauri, who led the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) from 2002 to February 2015 was actually trained as a railway engineer and then later obtained his PhD in economics. He had no training in climate science.
His replacement in 2015, 69-year-old Hoesung Lee, has only a PhD in economics. Once again, he could hardly be considered a climate scientist.
Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could only claim at best to have a Masters degree in Anthropology. Her other claim might be her certificate in Organizational Development from Georgetown University.
Even the guy behind the Mann-made climate change, Michael Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University. Once again, no degree in climate science.
Ms. Weiss desperately needs to rethink her position.
She also seems quite occupied with the work of mathematician Christopher Essex. I might remind her that he is a professional mathematical model maker and has more than a little knowledge about model construction. Similarly, he is quite capable of demonstrating the major weaknesses of the current mathematical climate models used by the highly political IPCC and others, which have nearly a 100% failure rate in their predictions/projections.
Obviously, there are major concerns with these failing models, especially when some are demanding that millions of dollars be spent, based on their faulty climate predictions. The constant data tampering by organizations such as NASA and NOAA combined with falsified research (see NOAA’s current problems) give us little faith in the gradually disintegrating ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ hypothesis.
For whatever reason, Ms. Weiss believes that her attempts at character assassination are advantageous in making some kind of a point. Perhaps she should stick to the known science before setting out in an attempt to question the statements of others, who obviously have a much better scientific background.
With a billion dollars a day spent as a direct result of the failed climate hypothesis, perhaps she is looking in the wrong places while supposedly following the money. Her mistaken assumptions and those of the organization to which she belongs are too numerous to detail here, but suffice it is to say that she has a great deal more to learn about our constantly evolving climate before striking out at those with whom she disagrees.