Editor,
In his letter of Feb. 8, Scott Abramson claims that climate change activists are actually “science deniers” because they are not open to exploring new data, theories and ideas about climate change. The positions of climate change activists are informed by the results of over 40 years of research by climate scientists. The science may not be 100% settled — perhaps it’s only 90+% settled. But we ignore its conclusions at our peril.
Here is what we know. Since the late 1800s, global average temperature has risen by 2.2 F; sea levels have risen; the acidity and temperature of the oceans has increased; the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers around the world have melted at an increasing rate, etc. These are verified physical measurements that are not in dispute. We also know to a very high degree of certainty that these changes have been caused by increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.) in the atmosphere resulting from human activity. There are no natural phenomena that would explain these physical changes. We also know that global temperatures, sea-level rise, etc. will continue to increase in the future as greenhouse gas emissions increase. Sophisticated climate models, although not perfect, help us understand the resulting environmental consequences if we do not aggressively reduce those emissions.
My question to Mr. Abramson is: Where are the alternative data, theories and ideas about climate change that would contradict the results of 40 years of solid climate science research?
Bob Steele
Redwood City
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(5) comments
That the climate is changing is not proof of catastrophe climate change. But we did experience catastrophic climate change in the Little Ice 500 years ago when CO2 levels in the air dropped so low that plants couldn’t grow and many people starved to death in Europe. As Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore said, we are lucky to have a safety margin in CO2 levels today. The greening of our planet as seen from space since the 1960’s is undeniable. UN models lack the inputs to make climate predictions and can not distinguish between natural variation and man’s influence. But for a number of practical reasons the world is already developing tomorrows energy which will be green and far less expensive than fossil fuels. Private industry and governments are investing billions to develop hydrogen based energy to tide us over until fusion energy (the basis of the Sun’ energy) comes into use in about 30 years.
Another day, another lecture on global warming using cherry-picked data… Hey Mr. Steele, if you want alternative data, theories, and ideas, why don’t you tell us what you think of the COP conference attendees who took over 400 jets to attend, the air conditioning that was used because it was over 80 degrees outside, and the amount of meat served from those methane-producing cows. If these folks aren’t aggressively reducing their emissions, is it because they don’t believe your data, theories, and ideas? Perhaps they know something you don’t?
Again, Terence, the whole personal carbon footprint thing is an invention of the oil & gas industry's propaganda campaign. There is no correlation between the personal carbon footprint of climate activists and the very real threat to the human species.
Westy, we can conclude that when you say “There is no correlation between the personal carbon footprint of climate activists and the very real threat to the human species.” you agree that there is no such thing as man-made global warming. Good to know. I guess I no longer need to ask what you’re doing to save the Earth.
Great response, Bob!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.