Re: Cherry picking climate change statistics

I thank Mr. Gough for his response to my critique of his initial letter on climate change. To examine his arguments in depth would require a thesis, not a letter to the editor, so I’ll have to ‘cherry pick’ a couple of points.

I thank Mr. Gough for his response to my critique of his initial letter on climate change. To examine his arguments in depth would require a thesis, not a letter to the editor, so I’ll have to ‘cherry pick’ a couple of points.

The cherry picking of disconnected and isolated facts is precisely the point my initial letter addressed. For example, the IPCC exists explicitly “… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation ….” (a quote taken directly from the IPCC’s)

So, by the IPCC’s own admission, they exist to study ‘human-induced’ climate change, a study that can only carry scientific validity if one assumes that ‘human-induced’ climate change is already an established theory. The scientists contributing to the IPCC’s studies ran computer climate models from 1997 to 2013 and of the 117 computer models examined, 114 were completely wrong, and in the opposite sense to the recorded data for the same period (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit, NOAA National Climatic Data Centre, Japanese Meteorological Agency).

Therefore, judged by the data the contributors to the IPCC themselves published, adherents of ‘human-induced global warming’ do not yet have a theory, only a hypothesis and in any other field of scientific investigation, that would result in the hypothesis being either revised, or discarded. If you only consider evidence that supports the hypothesis being studied and disregard all evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, you have a textbook case of pseudoscience and claiming such studies constitute good ‘science’ denigrates, by association, scientific efforts in a multitude of other fields where the scientific method is robustly applied, hence the growing opposition by proper scientists, including Nobel Laureate Physicists.

The IPCC’s political direction is not a conspiracy, but an established fact that can easily be ascertained by reading the organization’s own material. That we’ve funded an organization specifically to collate pseudo-scientific research is utterly asinine. That policy decisions will be made on the assumption that their conclusions will match the empirical data collected, despite having been proven wrong thus far, is utterly insane but the media and political gears grind onward with little regard to real data and accurate science, much to the chagrin of serious scientists and common sense citizens/taxpayers everywhere.

Between 60 degrees south latitude and the South Pole, we have less than a dozen ground based stations measuring atmospheric temperature and I’ll leave the reader to explore how many were there in 1898. In fact, we’ve got no accurate historical temperature data for 75 per cent of the world’s surface yet we get blanket statements about ‘global average’ temperatures? The reality is that we have absolutely no accurate data on the Earth’s average temperature 100 years ago, only local and regional data. Our understanding of long term temperature trends comes out of the analysis of ice cores, geological evidence and paleontological evidence (geographical location of fossils of species known to have a narrow band of temperature sensitivity). There is absolutely no way of calculating temperature to a resolution that makes 0.8 degrees statistically significant, opening up a huge grey area in which politicians and the scientists competing for funding, can play their multi-billion dollar games.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler and Einstein are all rolling over in their graves!

Stewart Staudinger

Red Deer

BEng (HONS) Aeronautical Engineering

Just Posted

Red Deer fire station up for sale

Home sweet home at Fire Station 4

Most surveyed Innisfail residents give urban chickens the thumbs up

Town of Innisfail will discuss whether to allow backyard chickens on Monday

Second attempted ATM theft at Red Deer IGA

Anyone with information is asked to contact RCMP

City businesses must have licences

Businesses can apply through new system online called MyLicence

WATCH: Two weeks away from Canadian Finals Rodeo in Red Deer

In just two weeks, Ponoka’s Shayna Weir will compete with the best… Continue reading

Hi Mickey, ‘Bye Mickey: 6 Disney parks on 2 coasts in 1 day

ORLANDO, Fla. — Heather and Clark Ensminger breathed sighs of relief when… Continue reading

Court weighs ‘Apprentice’ hopeful’s suit versus Trump

NEW YORK — President Donald Trump’s lawyers hope to persuade an appeals… Continue reading

StarKist admits fixing tuna prices, faces $100 million fine

SAN FRANCISCO — StarKist Co. agreed to plead guilty to a felony… Continue reading

Annual pace of inflation slows to 2.2 per cent in September: Statistics Canada

OTTAWA — The annual pace of inflation slowed more than expected in… Continue reading

Jury finds Calgary couple guilty in 2013 death of toddler son

CALGARY — A jury has convicted a Calgary couple in the death… Continue reading

Study of U.S. hospital figures links pot use with increased risk of stroke

MONTREAL — New research is being presented at a conference in Montreal… Continue reading

Leon Draisaitl has overtime winner as Edmonton Oilers down Boston Bruins 3-2

EDMONTON — Connor McDavid set up Leon Draisaitl for the overtime winner… Continue reading

Edmonton girl guide sells out of cookies in front of cannabis store on first day

EDMONTON — She’s being called one smart cookie. As people lined up… Continue reading

Most Read