Citing NASA, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and a variety of scientific associations, former Sen. Ted Kaufman asserts in his 11/9/14 column that “most scientists believe . . . that global warming is happening, at least in part due to human activity.” Like any scientific question, this issue must be decided not by the “consensus” of scientists but by observation. Satellite measurements show that there has been no net global warming for the past 17 years, a period for which NASA and the IPCC had predicted substantial warming due to CO2 released by combustion of fossil fuels. The global warming hypothesis embodied in the NASA and IPCC computer models [has] failed the test of experience.
Somewhat naively, Sen. Kaufman asks why “scientists” might want “to make us believe something that isn’t true.” The answer is that climate-change research, like wind power and other “renewable” energy, has become a big business that is dependent on government support. In August 2013, the White House reported to Congress that the US budgeted more than $2.5 billion for climate research for both 2012 and 2013, with even bigger expenditures proposed for this year. Research scientists and their universities want to keep this money coming. It is in the economic interest of science associations and their members to promote a sense of urgency about “climate change” even though, for now at least, the warming has stopped.
Gregory A. Inskip Wilmington
Don’t deny science explaining climate, Mark Sharnoff, Newark, 11/16/14 – The writer attempts to rebut Inskip’s letter by attributing the 15+ year hiatus in global warming to heat going to the mid-to-deep oceans of the planet as recorded by thermal sensors. “Temperatures recorded by the immersed sensors show the energy recently sequestered in the deep is sufficient to explain the quiescence of temperature at the surface.” This theory was floated some time ago. Has global warming stopped? No – it’s just on pause, insist scientists, and it’s down to the oceans, Steve Connor, independent.co.uk, 7/22/13. But are we really supposed to believe that 97% of scientists buy it?