Dear Editor:
RE: Get heads out of sand, Aug. 11.
The frequent use of the term “climate emergency” or “crisis” has prompted some questions about that phrase. Lisa Mychajluk uses it in her letter but provides no source for it.
I did some digging to find people that have made statements supporting this term. NASA scientist James Hansen said, “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change … no longer than a decade, at the most.” He stated this Sept. 14, 2006. Hmm.
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said, “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” He stated this on Dec. 12, 2007.” Hmm again.
Here’s a twist, Emeritus Professor Kenneth Watt (UC Davis) said, “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” He stated this in April of 1970! What is going on?
The people making these statements hold professional and expert titles and make me concerned about the validity and accuracy of their studies and data. You may have heard that “97% of climate scientists agree or believe global temperatures have increased during the last century and that human activity is a significant contributing factor.” Okay, but who are they? I’ve given three examples of climate scientists and what they believe varies considerably.
So what exactly did the 97% agree on and how did they prove it? It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of climate change. Is it a mild manageable warming or a runaway catastrophic warming?
The term significant is not defined either. Is it 30, 40 or 50 percent contributing factor? There is a survey by Doran and Zimmerman in 2009 given to 10,257 scientists. The question asked was, “Is human activity a significant factor in global warming?” 3,069 responded. Of those, 77 were selected; 75 agreed and two did not. 75 divided by 77 is 97%. But only 2% of the respondents were used and “significant” was not defined again.
Radical actions taking on inaccurate predictions can cause more harm than good. The unrelenting war on fossil fuels, and now farming, may cause more of a crisis than what have with climate issues. Dig for information, think critically and decide for yourself.
Michael Thorp,
Mount Forest