August 19, 2009 in Letters

Warming ‘consensus’ crumbles

• Print
• Email
• Share

The S-R cites professors from area universities who, along with four council candidates, believe that human-caused CO2 emissions have a significant negative impact on climate change.

Maybe they haven’t read the current (March 16, 2009) U.S. Senate Minority Report: More than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-made Global Warming Claims. That’s 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the original Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change Report that led to federal, state and local “sustainability action plans” and policies. In the last two years the “consensus” has collapsed. Russian, Japanese, East Indian and even Canadian scientists (68 percent) are declaring that nature, not human activity, rules the climate.

Why should honest politicians, like Nancy McLaughlin and citizens like us, care what the consensus is? Because government policies that limit greenhouse gas emissions would lower the quality of life and reduce economic well-being for future generations – all based on false science. Restricted freedoms include the kind of car you drive, where you live, what you can do on your property, how many miles you drive, how much you will pay for basic necessities. In other words, every aspect of human activity will be affected. See for yourself at www.climatephysics.com.

Penny Lancaster

Spokane

Two comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  praetorian on August 19 at 9:46 a.m.

  Nice to know there remains a modicum of common sense close to my zip code. Well written and good citations and references.

• 

  andreamarie360 on August 22 at 4:50 p.m.

  Ms. Lancaster,

  Your claim that “700 scientists dissenting to the idea of global warming is 13 times more than the 52 author-scientists of the UN’s global warming panel” does little to substantiate your view point. Are you insinuating that there are only 52 recognized scientists who suscribe to this theory? Surely you understand how ridiculous it would be if 700 authors each contributed written work to a single report—It would be lengthy, redundant, and unnecessary. A published poll of scientists accepting or refuting this theory would be in order if you truly wanted to establish a “by the numbers” rationale for your argument.

  As for the comment left by “praetorian”, I wonder which citations and references you speak of. Surely you can’t be referring to the single website Ms. Lanacaster has listed, which is the personal site of a single dissenting and oft-criticized scientist?