Climate change: settled science?
In recent years, much has been said about “global warming.” As the arguments for that term began to wear thin, “climate change” became the term in vogue for many people.
It was a young professor, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University who developed what came to be known as the “hockey stick” graph that ostensibly demonstrated that general Earth temperatures had been quite flat for most of the past 1,400 years until approximately 1900, at which time it began to rise.
It has been postulated by some that this increase has been due to anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) impacts. This assumption has been and is at the root of the promotion of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Over the years (perhaps 20-plus years), there have been meetings regarding this subject with the latest one the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference.
Around the world, legislation/proposed legislation has been proposed and some passed to address these concerns.
It is now accepted by some people that the entire issue is “settled science” and that anyone who disagrees is a “climate change denier.” I am not a climatologist or a scientist, but the issue is far-from “settled” in the actual community of climate scientists.
Indeed, most of them question the methods used by Michael Mann using “proxy” data to support his hypothesis and the methods he has used to bully anyone who disagrees with his conclusions. Most actual climate scientists and scientists in general do not agree that the current climate has much – if anything – to do with human influences and that we should not continue headlong into spending vast sums of money trying to effect climate.
We all remember Al (I invented the Internet) Gore and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” right? Well, it was inconvenient truths that Michael Mann in his hockey stick graph that left out important historical data regarding the Medieval Warming Period (approx. A.D. 950-1250) and the Little Ice Age (approx. 1300-1850). He also failed to account for natural climate variability.
Now, I am not an expert on any of this, but you may check this out for yourself in Mark Steyn’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” (2015). Here are a few examples of scientists and what they have to say:
Dr. Madhav Khandekar PhD, meteorologist and climatologist: “Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD: “The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession.”
Dr. Michael R Fox, PhD: “We now know that the hockey stick graph is fraudulent.”
Dr. Hamish Campbell, PhD: “Mann’s hockey stick has indeed been substantially discredited.”
There are over a hundred other paleontologists, geologists, climatologists and other scientists who make similar statements; check them out. Note: the book is available through the library if you like.
So, do we take half-baked data from a rookie scientist using dubious methods to justify the expenditure of billions of dollars on a fool’s errand to affect climate and/or do we use Kyoto or other such agreements as a method of wealth redistribution from developed countries to the third world? Learn the truth and it will set you free.
Rick Heiberg
Coulee City