Letters to the Editor

I’m writing in reaction to Stephen Pearcy’s letter from Oct. 13 where he paints a picture of those of us who don’t happen to believe that CO2 is poisoning our atmosphere. He calls us “deniers” so we can be neatly categorized with Holocaust deniers and flat-Earthers.

Sorry, sir, it’s not that simple. Some of us with backgrounds in science, math modeling and statistical regression have actually done our own research, searching the global warming evidence for what is factually true, what is supposition and what remains as “groupthink” and political science.

I’ve read four books this summer written by climate science experts who have dug below the surface of what the public has been led to believe regarding anthropogenic global warming forced by human-generated CO2. I’m not a “climate change denier.” I believe the climate is changing as it always has, primarily in accordance with Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles and volcanic activity.

I also believe human civilization likely plays some role in affecting the climate, but I don’t consider CO2 to be the magic ingredient. I’m for renewable energy, cleaner air, cleaner water and being good stewards of this amazing blue planet. Call me a “denier,” but I just balk at the notion that CO2 at less than .5% of the atmosphere (the very gas that is essential to all plant life and therefore all animal life) is “poisoning” the atmosphere and causing catastrophic heating of the Earth.

I could be convinced this hypothesis has credibility if I were shown the scientific evidence, experimental results, replication attempts by unbiased peer reviewers and logic supporting such an assertion. So far, I’ve found little evidence of good scientific practice and have instead learned of disgraceful strategies to hide contrary evidence and to disparage scientists with opposing views. I’ve found hypotheses based on estimations of proxy data that are based on unfounded assumptions. I’ve found evidence of data tampering and math models that could make a “hockey stick” out of random numbers.

Those (1,000) emails leaked by a frustrated insider from East Anglia in the U.K. (primarily between scientists Michael Mann and Phil Jones) clearly show conspiring scientists of the IPCC “cherry picking” data and smearing anyone who questions their beautiful hypothesis by exposing ugly historical facts like the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Dr. Mann (the scientist at the center of the corruption) created the “hockey stick graph” which has since been discredited by peer reviews of scientists outside the closed circle of IPCC. The “hockey stick” (first popularized in Al Gore’s movie) has served its political purpose and is still being used to indoctrinate our youth in high schools and universities.

Richard Eichler

Aiken