OPINION: Please Do Not Disparage ‘Climate Change’ Skeptics
I came across Ms. Weiss’ letter in the Pagosa Daily Post, questioning Tom Harris’ competence in climate science.
Unfortunately I did not see one single scientific argument in her letter… but quite a bit of misjudgments and disparagements.
Me. Weiss admits she is not a climate scientist, but nevertheless she has a very firm opinion on climate change (based upon her feelings and her admiration for personalities she considers authorities in this field, rather than upon facts and arguments). Meanwhile, she criticizes Mr. Harris for having a clear opinion on climate change as a mechanical engineer.
May I remind her that the former president of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Mr. Pachauri, is a railway engineer?
She calls Scott Pruitt as a climate change denier. I know of hundreds of scientists who are skeptical about dangerous manmade global warming. However, not a single one of them is denying climate change. The only professional climate change deniers I know are the scientists closely affiliated to the IPCC. Looking to the radiative forcing agents as analyzed by the IPCC it becomes obvious that these scientists need manmade CO2-emission to explain climate change. They have tremendous problems with explaining the numerous warm periods during the Holocene (past 10,000 years), as the IPCC considers the influence of the sun on climate variability as miniscule. There are quite a number of recent peer reviewed papers confirming that most of the Holocene was warmer than today in spite of pre-industrial CO2 levels. The most perspicuous of them I consider the work done by Gernot Patzelt from Innsbruck University who excavated prominent tree trunks preserved in moors and glaciers well above the present day tree lines all over the Alps.
Ms. Weiss considers modern climate science (claiming dangerous manmade climate change) as a “deep technical field with compelling evidence and clear conclusions”. I disagree, as there is a growing divergence between modeled and observed temperatures (in spite of further increasing CO2 levels). This is a clear indicator that there is something wrong with the models and the theory – as nicely shown by the mathematician Chris Essex, an expert in model validation. But Ms. Weiss discredits him for supposedly not having climate science credentials?
Unfortunately in these days we have to witness that certain climate scientists (with a lot of credentials) in recent years desperately tried to adjust the data to the models instead of validating and eventually discarding the models.
Lastly, she trusts MunichRe exposing vested interests when arguing in favor of higher insurance premiums. Not even the IPCC found statistical evidence of dangerous climate extremes being more frequent or intense (IPCC 2012: Special Report on Climate Extremes).
So, I cannot see scientific arguments on Ms. Weiss’ favor. I ask that she not discredit Tom Harris.
Dr. Albrecht Glatzle