Long on rhetoric, short on scientific evidence
James Heath, Sc’75, of Raleigh, NC, argues that John Smol's article on "the folly" of climate change denial is long on rhetoric, but short on scientific evidence.
Letter to the Editor
Re: "The folly of denial"
Issue #3-2010, p. 10
John Smol likes to dwell on innuendo, which he gives the impression is only directly at the global warming followers. He does not mention the whole Climategate issue from the CRU, the IAC’s review of the IPCC’s methods, or the behavior of “Hide the Decline” Mann from the U of Pennsylvania. Mann and the CRU tried to get magazines that did peer reviews disqualified because they had the nerve to publish articles that disputed their positions. I’d like to know if Smol is in favor of all peer review, or like the IPCC, only that peer review which agrees with them.
For a person who wants to lay to bed the objections to this “science” he produces little in the way of scientific argument. I kind of would like to hear his opinion of Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan chair of the Department of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For those who are not familiar with MIT it is a highly-rated science and engineering university. Lindzen does not take too kindly to most of the assertions made by people like Smol, and the reputation of his institution lends him a little credibility, enough for me to question the certainty with which Smol writes.
Reading about this in the Alumni Review reminds me of when I was younger and lived in Canada and all the trends came to Canada about a year after they had been all across the USA. This argument has been conclusively and accurately questioned in more venues and by better qualified people than I.
Publish this letter or not, but I hope we get less political and more applicable articles.
James Heath, Sc’75