Show me the money!
Queen’s seems to be drinking the kool aid of environmental alarmists who ignore temperature data scandals and continue to believe in the fairy tail (sic) of Gore's Inconvenient Lie.
Most intelligent, thinking people do not necessarily subscribe to the idea that temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. Truly intelligent thinking people look at where the data comes from: temperature sensors in paved parking lots that were not paved years ago, sensors outside air conditioners and the elimination of many sensors in cooler areas from the record to make it look like temperatures are rising “alarmingly”. Fortunately there are a growing number of true climatologists who are doing real climatology and not subscribing to the mantra that they have to prove global warming to get funding. In fact, a few are even predicting global cooling.
With multiple degrees in engineering and statistics from MIT and an MBA from Queen’s, I learned a lot about how to analyze data and use peer-reviewed data. By refusing to release the raw data on temperature change for peer review, those scientists are not believable and their work should be discredited until a truly independent peer review is completed. Their attempts to prevent opposing views from publication in the so called reputable journals (so-called because they succumbed and did not print opposing viewpoints or studies) further makes the case against the warming alarmists. At least one is being investigated by the Virginia Attorney General for possible fraud in using state money to support a desired outcome rather than do real research. I wish the AG well.
As for the editor’s question, "What if the alarmists are wrong?”, the answer offered is totally off base. Rather than the ludicrous “No Harm Done,” the real harm will come from the lowered standard of living caused by misguided policies of the alarmists which increase energy prices, reduce energy production and leaves the next generation worse off than this one because of bad policy decisions.
The Russian roulette analogy is wrong. The real question is are you going to point a revolver with one cartridge (assuming global warming is correct and that humans can change the facts) with a small potential for harm or point a loaded pistol (take many misguided actions which will destroy the economy in the name of preventing something which may not happen) with 100 per cent guarantee of the outcome?
Let's not mindlessly charge into the “Green is Great” arena with projects that are not economically sound. And let's use real science to make decisions, not science based on the religion of global warming.
Since graduating from MIT and Queens in the early ‘70s, I have done a lot of modeling of various types and know how to tune a model to get the desired results, which seems to be how the global warming models have been run. Bet I can take the same models, change the parameters to those of other scientists who rely on different data, and prove global cooling.
Oh, wait! That was the alarmist venue of these same global warming scientists a decade or two ago when we were preparing for the next ice age.
Carey Probst, MBA’73
Lock Haven, PA