Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods

WALTER CUNNINGHAM in the HOUSTON CHRONICLE on Aug. 14, 2010 wrote:(link in title)

The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.

It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.

Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.

It is the job of science to develop the theories that explain our natural world. Scientific theories, even those that evolved over centuries, are subject to challenge and change — when supported by the appropriate scientific data. This enables new hypotheses to modify, or even replace, currently accepted theories.

It is interesting that Walter and his correspondents seem to know more about climate science than most of the MSM.

Some comments on the Chronicle site:


Regarding "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), Robert Curl is making two invalid assumptions. First, he assumes the administrators of the National Academy of Sciences represent the opinions of their 2,480 members. In fact, there is no document that any representative number of these 2,480 members have signed expressing their opinion that the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is valid.

Second, he assumes there is some "best science" out there that prevails over the body of opinion represented by Walter Cunningham ("Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods," Page B10, Aug. 15). In fact, neither Curl nor any of the proponents of human-caused climate change can demonstrate a valid hypothesis to support their opinions.

If a hypothesis makes any incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is wrong. It does not matter if you have a Nobel Prize. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. An overwhelming body of science has proven the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is wrong.

— EDWIN BERRY,
Bigfork, Mont.
Wrong logic

In regard to "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), climate change is happening and global warming is happening — but it ain't being caused by us pesky humans. Robert Curl's verbiage points a crooked finger directly at me and you, and it shouldn't. Award-winning scientists such as Professor Curl are prime suspects for marching with a flute in their hands, leading an innocent group of followers down a path of believable logic (albeit wrong). If humans cause global warming how do you explain the constant, steady pattern of ice age-then-warming, ice age-then-warming, that is documented over the past 500,000 years? The problem with those who believe in human-caused global warming: They only cite references that support their theories. No one looks up anything, and Curl gets another award and probably a pay raise from Rice University.

— DAVID WALTON,
Houston