Most scientists agree on climate change data
April 09, 2014 12:00 AM | 3249 views | 16 16 comments | 17 17 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

William Lewis’ letter, “Climate-changers busy twisting data,” appeared March 16 in the MDJ in response to my letter, which took exception to columnist Melvyn Fein’s linking of “liberal denial” to global warming. Mr. Lewis called me an “ardent global-warming alarmist,” stated that I have “obviously over-imbibed on the Al Gore Kool-Aid,” also that I can be expected to “twist the facts” or “state outright falsehoods, and that I will call anyone who disagrees with me “an idiot.” Having never met me, Mr. Lewis must be quite willing to slander anyone with whom he disagrees!

So, Mr. Lewis, you are wrong when you state that the “97 percent consensus of climate scientists who agree that global warming is happening and that it is human-induced” has been debunked. Because of space limitations, I must leave it there. I advise him not to place any large wagers on this statement!

He wrote: “Hey, come on, just the fanciful idea that 97 percent of any group could agree on one of the most controversial issues of our time should have been a red flag.” We are not talking about “any group,” we’re talking about leading published climate scientists, and he is purposely clouding the issue.

Philip Lesly, addressing tobacco executives, said, “People generally do not favor action on a non-alarming situation when arguments seem to be balanced on both sides and there is a clear doubt. The weight of impressions on the public must be balanced so that people will have doubts and lack motivation to take action. Accordingly, means are needed to get balancing information into the stream from sources that the public will find credible. There is no need for a clear-cut victory. Nurturing public doubts by demonstrating that this is not a clear-cut situation in support of the opponents usually is all that is needed.”

So, the reason that global warming caused by humans is “one of the most controversial issues of our time,” as he states it, is pretty darned obvious, isn’t it Mr. Lewis?

The 31,000 scientists who “subscribed to the ‘Petition Project’ which presents its own facts that there is no global warming occurring, human-caused or otherwise” is falsehood that I cannot overlook. Only 32 of signers had a background in climatology. The “petition” was funded by the Exxon-backed Marshall Institute and the documents included for signing were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. Many people with no education in science signed it. This petition was a trick, designed to derail the Kyoto Treaty.

Finally, the following organizations have written statements agreeing that human-induced global warming is happening: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Chemical Society, The Geological Society of America, The American Geophysical Union, The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The American Medical Association, The U.S. Global Change Research Program, The American Meteorological Society, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and The American Physical Society.

Mr. Lewis, regarding climate change, should the public put more trust in you (or me), or in the scientific organizations above?

Ken Buxton

Marietta

Comments
(16)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
CobbCoGuy
|
April 13, 2014
The desperation of the climate change religion - do you laugh or feel sorry for them?

BBC News, UK Politics, April 9, 2014...

"Peer raises flatulence in climate change debate"

"To laughter from peers, he [Labour Peer Viscount Simon, 73] added: "Could the noble baroness say whether this [flatulence resulting from "...the UK's unusually high consumption of baked beans."] affects the calculation of global warming by the government as a result of the smelly emission resulting there from?"
CobbCoGuy
|
April 12, 2014
Mr. Buxton? Are you there?

Come out, come out, where ever you are!

Let's dispense with the counting of scientists' noses, or "my scientist can beat up your scientist", and approach this from a different angle.

The LA Times stated that it won't publish any letters to the editor that question climate change.

Over 100K people Twittered (is that a word now?) the Washington Post requesting them "...to stop publishing climate lies."

The University of Virginia student newspaper declared that climate change deniers should not be allowed to speak on campus.

The NY Times posted a cartoon: US Department of Commerce "Strategies for Dealing With the 2014 Icicle Surplus." One panel of the cartoon depicts a woman stabbing a climate denier with an icicle.

Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann is suing Mark Steyn, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for their criticisms of Mann's "science."

This should be evidence enough that the issue is no longer about science. It is about squashing and snuffing out any evidence or discourse that doesn't support the cause.

What say you?
Dimocreep Bias
|
April 10, 2014
Definition of hypocrisy: Harry Reid pointing the finger at the Koch brothers while George Soros owns the Democrat party.
Kevin Foley
|
April 09, 2014
Mr. Buxton, the Koch brothers' company dumps 200,000 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. They've spent $50 million funding the denial propagandists. Are you surprised? Knowing how PR works, I'm not.

Take a look at the comments below. Not one negative nabob offers a reasonable argument to your letter. They just attack you personally. Welcome to my world, but don't be afraid to push back. As I noted recently, truth has three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently attacked and finally it is accepted as self-evident.

More on the Koch bros in my Friday column.
Please Foley
|
April 10, 2014
There you go again Foley, tossing around imaginary facts and figures, but then secular progressives never allow the truth to get in their way. Really, you should stop pulling fake numbers from those liberal blogs you read and do some original research, so you can share some factual information next time.
Ben Twomey
|
April 10, 2014
How about Soros, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and the HOllywood Elite? How much money do they funnel through the government to support the tree huggers and the global warming alarmists?

The liberal rhetoric about the Koch Brothers is really quite worn out. If you want to keep spoutng the nonsense, go ahead. But, be aware that nobody is listening.

Now, why do you bring up the Koch Brothers when that is not what Buxton's inace letter is about?

kfolovestohijack
|
April 10, 2014
Ben, I'm sure you've picked up on K-Fo's reason for getting off track. You see, it's his pattern. He hijacks every possible topic and then (wait for it) tells you, 'More on the Koch bros in my Friday column'

K-Fo can't help himself. He really thinks people are going to flock to his blog to read more of his blathering crap. In a nutshell: He hates Fox News, he's anti-Christian, he hates Fox News, he's condescending to women, he hates Fox News, he thinks Obama hung the moon, he hates Fox News, he thinks everything wrong in the world is the fault of Republicans and George Bush, he hates Fox News...

Oh, sprinkle in there somewhere that he's insanely jealous of Laura Armstrong and Melvin Fein and Papermill Gal. You see, they actually write unique and original stuff. They take their lumps from critics without childish name-calling and hateful rhetoric.

We did learn one new thing from K-Fo last week: He goes snow skiing. Whoop dee doo!
on balance
|
April 10, 2014
Kevin Foley,

whoever you are (possibly two or three aliases?),

Koch bros?? Come on, we are talking about faux climate science here. Why didn't you reference the Baal of that, Al Gore? Why the Koch Brothers? Because you are an Obama acolyte and an insincere person whose need to , constantly, be in the limelight results in you writing anything to contradict any conservatives that visit MDJ.

One small enjoyment I have is when Prof. Fein shoots you down.
Kevin Foley
|
April 10, 2014
Mr. Buxton - see what I mean? All the trolls come out of the woodwork when you present easily verifiable, irrefutable facts...they hate facts.
on balance
|
April 09, 2014
@just sayin

just sprayin' poppycock!
just sayin
|
April 10, 2014
Didn't the 'scientists' from the American Tobacco Institute (paid for by tobacco industry) confirm that cigarettes were not addictive and did not cause cancer. Why would you expect any less from the fossil fuel industry!
on balance
|
April 10, 2014
just sayin

Why yes and thanks for proving my point!

The scientists that are spreading fear and panic get their money from government sources. Whether it be tobacco companies or government , all either want is money!
on balance
|
April 09, 2014
On balance, I put more trust in what Mr. Lewis wrote.
just sayin
|
April 09, 2014
You are deliberately trying to cloud right wing ideology with intelligence and reason. Shameful!
Harry Hagan
|
April 09, 2014
I hope you don't think you've written some persuasive and witty rebuttal, Mr. Buxton; you haven't. And if you're so comfortable that you're correct, why pursue it at all? It was your heavy-handed, smug, arrogant style in your first post that prompted Mr. Lewis and others to rebut.

Your list of orgs that support, in one way or the other, man-made climate change, is not any more persuasive than your own claims. As always, Sir, in any controversy, follow the money, or power, or both. Do you not know that mendacity occurs even at the highest levels of science and politics? Think of the shameless bold-faced lies told the American people re ObamaCare, for instance, or W Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco, or the neo-con push for wars all over the middle east. Again, money and power.

Science is not about who agrees with whom, it's about controlled experiment and irrefutable conclusion. Man-made climate change is in no way conclusive. Climatologists can't even predict the next day's weather, and they've been wrong year after year re hurricanes and storms. This affair is not about opinion; yours, mine, or Mr. Lewis's.

Kevin Foley
|
April 09, 2014
Uh, Harry, climatologists aren't weather men...those are meteorologists.

And those hurricanes and storms and their increasing intensity? That's evidence of climate change.

You need to get acquainted with facts before you show up here and spout off.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides