Quantcast
949-715-4100

Writer Questions Source of Climate Change Skeptic

Share this:

Editor,

This is in response to Stephen Tygh’s letter entitled “Global Warming Skeptics Find Common Ground

Thank you, Mr. Tygh, for providing additional information on your position. I apologize for categorizing you as a right-winger in denial of global warming. It’s just that most climate change deniers are “right wingers” who generally say climate change is a hoax (Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, for example).  Do you believe that the climate change is a natural occurrence caused by the sun or other natural causes?  If so, please cite your evidence. It would also be useful to know the type of meta-analytic techniques that found an accuracy rate of only .3% of the 11,994 scientific research papers that reported human activity as the main cause of climate change. You mention an unnamed “paper” that supported your statements? We welcome the opportunity to review this paper. (Let’s hope the authors were adept at meta-analysis).

Your statement that, “Shocker, I believe carbon emissions may cause global warming, but only negligibly, and nothing to be worried about” is definitely shocking.

Do you have any reputable information to back up this statement? Just this month U.S. and China agreed on carbon reduction goals. Why?  Could it be because of reported research as appears in the citation pasted below confirming the high (95%) confidence level of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity is the primary cause of climate change?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/09/global-warming-humans-not-sun

Laguna Beach and the world await your secret information.

 

George Weiss, Laguna Beach

 

Share this:
About the Author

Related Posts

  1. Thomas Martin
  2. Stephen Tygh

    Mr. Weiss, since your letter was not printed, I am responding here on the website. Laguna Beach and the world will have to make it to this website to find out I have no secret information.
    You are asking a lot of questions. Re-read my 2 letters and you can answer those regarding my opinion or beliefs. Those questions regarding evidence, you could easily find yourself. Copy and paste your questions on the internet and you will find a plethora of evidence. For your convenience, I have attached some links.
    In my previous letter, I stated the “97 Consensus” paper written by John Cook. Why would you say it was an unnamed paper? You yourself referred to the “97 % Consensus” in your letter “Rising CO2 Levels Undermine Climate Change Skepticism.” If you actually knew much in depth about the subject other than believing and repeating “talking points”, you would know where those “talking points” come from. John Cooks study is the one most often cited by the “97% Consensus” global warming alarmists. Perhaps you are the one blindly following a political ideology?
    Regarding the .3%, John Cooks study was disproven:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
    Another Alarmist pointed out to me that the Consensus has been updated to 99.98%, but like John Cooks study, an objective scientist needs to look at the methodology and assumptions of the study before coming to conclusions. Alarmists are falsely making their own conclusions.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_out_of_10855_scientists_agree_man_made_global_warming_is_happening/
    The Alarmists claim 99.98% Consensus, but all the study showed was that 2 papers explicitly reject AGW. The study was not about finding out the percentage of scientists that believed AGW. Always look at the methodology of the study. The Author of the study stated the following: “Many people seem to assume that my question was, “What percentage of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]?” But that was not my question. Rather it was, “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers reject AGW and what evidence do they present?” In other words, is there a scientific case against anthropogenic global warming?”
    Climate Change is a natural occurrence. Anthropologic Climate Change is climate change caused by man and has not been proven or disproven.
    http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
    My position on Anthropologic Global Warming and Anthropologic Climate Change is neither Alarmist nor Denier. I am Agnostic on the issue until the science is clear. I simply don’t accept lies being touted as science. But like I stated in my letter there is much room for common ground on the issue.

Leave a Reply

*