Climate opinions collide
In response to Richard Mead's letter of
Oct. 11 that dismisses the climate crisis along with humankind's ability
to create such a crisis, may I suggest a website created by people like
him who are also keeping on eye on things:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/.
The watchers of
geo-engineering hold a very different position from Mr. Mead's. Not only
do we have extreme and unwelcome changes in the climate, but a subset
of humankind is deliberately bringing these changes about.How
would Mr. Mead reconcile such conflicting positions -- his and theirs --
when they are taken by people who are obviously so like-minded?
Stephenie Frederick
Fresno
Man can't disrupt climate
ReplyDeleteRegarding Seth Borenstein's front-page article Sept. 30 regarding "wild weather," I am very sick and tired of the scientific media parroting what's become a boring old mantra of global-warming nonsense.
It is just as insidious for scientists to tell us they can differentiate between natural vs. man-made climate changes as it is to imply that man can cause climate disruption in the first place.
The article noted that two teams found a link to California's drought and global warming, yet this year's drought doesn't even make the top 10 droughts during the last 1,200 years. Here again is pure arrogance that when the weather is slightly different, man thinks it's his fault, because he hasn't been around to see what "normal"is.
The argument regarding anthropogenic warming will unfortunately continue, although those beating the warming drum are currently losing due to empirical data (actual) trumping modeled data (predicted). Perhaps that's why we keep seeing a doubling down of articles like Mr. Borenstein's.
Policy arguments based on a presumed "consensus"will begin to bleed more money out of duped taxpayers for more grants, wind-farm scams and bureaucrats, and away from true environmental causes, let alone Third World poverty.
Richard Mead
Clovis