Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

This author's use of the word "deniers" makes his objectivity highly suspect. In science, the only "targets" should be the arrival at factual information, sound theory and usable technology. I confess I still feel a bit odd questioning doctrine that has been embraced by so many (but, but no means all) in the scientific community. "Doctrine," which denotes what is often termed "political correctness." In reality, a number of commentators in the seventies and eighties spoke of the possible dangers of climate change, but in the framework of global cooling, not warming. A recent London Times article described how recent temps in Britain have been unseasonably low, and how the polar icecap has regained much of the mass it had lost. We already knew that part of the Antarctic glacier pack has been growing for some time, not thinning. If an open-minded individual is willing to spend a few minutes perusing the US Senate Minority Report on Climate Change from a few years ago--easily locatable online--s/he will notice that some 700 reputable scientists now have serious doubts about the global warming premise. This premise is based on several assumptions, and the more one examines these the more one must admit that, while we seem to have been witnessing some unusual weather phenomena, it is not at all clear that this is man-made, nor that it is in the direction of warming.

There is also the possibility that US military attempts to affect weather, using HAARP technology to "screw with" the ionosphere (since the fifties), may have finally yielded egregious fruit. Please examine the facts, and then draw reasonable conclusions. Anything else is pseudo-science or just yelling "Sieg heil!" to the propagandists or nut-cases.

Dr. Thomas Halle

Los Angeles, CA

Apr 23 2010 - 12:16am

Web Letter

"Deniers" is a really neat euphemism to apply to those who question "the science," but isn't part of science to question?

Here are some problems:
1. Those who fly to global warming conferences in private 747s
2. Those stand to gain from spikes in the price of oil, private and governmental
3. Not even a mention of deforestation
4. No attempt to curb the use of military fuels.
5. No attempt to try and curb air travel.
6. Well-paid intellectuals spouting doublespeak.
7. No attempt to change highways between point to point.
8. Timid attempts at mass transit, (e.g., high speed rail and mag lev)
9. No attempts to increase hydro
10. Timid attempts at forcing China to curb its coal fired plants. They are firing a new plant every week.

Question: If I'm living hand to mouth, why do I have to pay for a cure that seems false?

james l. pinette

Caribou, ME

Apr 21 2010 - 1:50pm

Web Letter

Well, if there is claptrap here, it is from Mr. Hertsgaard. The AGW crowd hung themselves with their own dishonesty. If a science is true, you do not have to fabricate evidence and data, make it an agenda and present it as truth as the IPPC has done. The people are smart enough to recognize a fraud when they see one. The only denial out there is the AGW position that still does not recognise the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Claiming that CO2 is a pollutant when it is plant food... how do you get your mind around that?

Climategate came in the nick of time to save the world economy from the tyranny of ultimate government control that was poised to dictate how people must live their lives, thereby taking away our freedoms.

Sam Pyeatte

Everett, WA

Apr 18 2010 - 10:25pm

Web Letter

Mark Twain only referred (in "Chapters from My Autobiography," published inThe North American Review, No. DCXVIII., July 5, 1907) to "lies, damned lies, and statistics" in order to attribute that phrase to the nineteenth-century British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. Whoever coined this famous phrase, it was definitely not Mark Twain. Even Twain's cite to Disraeli is wrong. The phrase does not appear in any of Disraeli's works, and the earliest appearances were years after his death.

The earliest known occurrence of this phrase is in a letter dated June 8, 1891, published June 13, 1891, in The National Observer p.93 (-94): "Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." Later, in October 1891, as a query in Notes and Queries, the pseudonymous questioner, signing as "St Swithin," asked for the originator of the phrase, indicating then-common usage. The pseudonym has been attributed to Eliza Gutch. Not Twain.

The rest of the article is mostly even sloppier than this attribution to Twain. It exhausts me just to think about a full refutation.

Kenneth McKenna

Los Angeles, CA

Apr 16 2010 - 10:52pm

Web Letter

The author begins this narrative by explaining how Ronald Reagan used polls to fool the press into believing his policies were popular. The press was fooled into believing that in 1984 Reagan won reelection with 59 percent of the vote. He won only forty-nine states because he stopped campaigning in Minnesota; Mondale just barely won his home state as a result.

There are two facts relating to global warming, that dwarf all other facts in importance.

The first is; was there, as paleodata indicates, a medieval warming period with temperatures as warm as they are now. If this is true, then CO2 is probably not the primary driver of climate warming.

The second important fact is; has warming currently stopped, or paused, or even diminished. If any of those conditions is true, then CO2 is positively not the primary driver of climate warming.

Mike Sorensen

Las Vegas , NV

Apr 16 2010 - 9:04pm

Web Letter

Mark Hertsgaard has written nothing to refute the thesis that the majority of global warming evidence to date is either inaccurate or fraudulent.

Condemning public opinion and opinion polls as though either has any relevance to "settled science" or "scientific consensus"--thank you, Al Gore--demonstrates the weakness of his logic.

In short, after reading a few of the opening paragraphs, I could extrapolate the rest of his article as worthless in its entirety.

tim stevens

New York, NY

Apr 16 2010 - 7:20pm

Web Letter

I'll put my bets on climate science, not on the IPCC Fraud brigade. With around forty important errors, and still growing, this argument backing the fraud is just pathetic. The title betrays it: Mr. Hertsgaard is obviously a firm believer in "Climategate Claptrap."

I am a global warming believer, in part because we can see that the icecaps of Mars are melting along with ours. How can we blame that on humans?

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby , PA

Apr 15 2010 - 11:55pm