EurActiv - Letters to the Editor

Sir,

Regarding ‘Economics vs The Renewables Bigger Picture‘:

Negotiations on climate change mitigation measures were a highlight at this year’s G8 summit in Italy [1] [2]. The president of the Commission of the European Communities (alias the European Commission, EC) José Manuel Barroso is even quoted as saying he would “stress the importance of the science and remaining within a two degrees temperature rise” [3] at the summit.

Today I read Mr Parr’s letter to the editor of EurActiv [4], and last week I really wondered if I should laugh or cry over a blog entry titled “How climate change will change your diet” by Gräs [5], who reportedly works for DG Enterprise and Industry at the EC (a search in the EU’s ‘Who is who?’ directory [6] did not return any match for the author’s name).

In that relation and in the light of the forthcoming 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, I would like to share my personal observations and experience of “the importance of the science” for the EC and the Community institutions’ hypocritical fight against climate change.

To that end, I would like to begin by making clear that I am neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist. However, I hold a Master of Science degree in Molecular Biology, supplemented by three years’ experience working at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and another Master of Science degree in Environmental Sciences and Policy, so I do know what real science must look like.

Further to that, as a long-term senior expert at the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water and a policymaker at the national and international levels, I am also fully aware of the importance of employing the best-available science in the preparation and implementation of any policy for the latter to be successful.

Last but not least, I have considerable practice as a journalist and editor, which made me familiar with the requirements of high-standard professional journalism. Therefore, in my letter I will focus on the quality of science on which the EC bases its policies and on the quality of journalism that the Commission uses in its communication with the public.

Having made the above clear, I would like to point out that, as far as the science of climate change is concerned, the EC’s policies aimed at combating climate change have very little, not to say nothing, to do with real science since they all draw heavily on the reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [7] [8] [9].

Many leading scientists, including lead authors and contributors to the reports, have on numerous occasions exposed the IPCC as an organisation lacking integrity, and its reports – as tendentiously ignoring scientific evidence, misinforming and manipulative; for example, in 1996 Seitz accused the IPCC of a “disturbing corruption of the peer-review process” [10], in 2007 Reiter, a contributor to one of the IPCC’s reports, said in an interview “I was horrified to read the second and the third assessment reports because there was so much misinformation…” [11], and in 2007 Singer and Avery wrote that “the [1996] IPCC report itself documented the reality that the human-made warming claim was false” [12].

Naturally, the IPCC rejects these accusations – in response to Seitz’s critique, Santer (the lead author of the chapter criticised by Seitz) stated that the accusations were wrong and that “all IPCC procedural rules were followed in producing the final […] version” [13]. Nevertheless, the respected science journal Nature is cited having published an article whose findings support Seitz’s accusations [12] [14].

To counteract the repeated mantra of “scientific consensus” on man-made global warming, I would like to note that with more than 700 prominent international scientists dissenting over the IPCC’s man-made global warming claims as of now and their number constantly growing every year [15] [16] [17], there is hardly any “scientific consensus” that human activities have any contribution whatsoever to the process as (mis)represented by the EC [18], on which (mis)representation all Community policies for combating and adapting to climate change are based [7] [8] [9].

In fact, only a few years ago many scientists suggested an alternative theory – that it is global cooling we must prepare for and which might happen in the next couple of decades [19] [20].

Moreover, even lead authors and contributors to the IPCC’s reports disagree with their conclusions, and especially with the claims of “the consensus of thousands of scientists” that “humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system” [11] [18]. Some of these scientists disagree to such an extent with the content of the reports that they have even resigned from the IPCC.

Quite controversially, the IPCC keeps the names of these scientists on the author list even after they have resigned; in fact, Reiter, who did not agree with the final draft of a report he had contributed to, even “had to threaten legal action against [the IPCC]” in order to have his name removed from the author list [11].

Now, I am among the first to admit that safety precautions (Better safe than sorry!) do make sense when it comes to environment protection, since even slight changes in the living environment can have significant impacts on the health and well-being of organisms.

However, in real science, both of the above theories would have equal right to existence until one of them was disproved. Hence, a real precautionary approach would employ both probabilities and a well-thought, comprehensive climate change mitigation strategy should equally consider the two alternative scenarios. This, however, is not the case with the EC’s policies, which are based only on the global warming alternative [7] [8] [9].

Based on my personal experience with the European Commission, I claim not only that the EC is ignoring the voices of scientists, who caution against spreading the ungrounded claim of man-made global warming, but that the Commission has made man-made climate change its new cult.

To support that claim, I will refer to an interview for a position with DG Environment that I attended a couple of years ago, at which I was asked the question ‘Do you believe in climate change?’ (emphasis added). Now, as a person of a scientific background, I do not just believe in phenomena, I seek to understand their mechanism and search for evidence that would support a scientific hypothesis on their functioning. Therefore I asked for the question to be repeated in the hope that it would be reworded to sound less like a question from a church choir entrance exam.

However, since the question was repeated word-for-word for a second time, ‘Do you believe in climate change?’, I replied exactly the following: “The question is not formulated correctly. I do not need to believe in climate change as such, since I know that it is a natural phenomenon which has occurred throughout the entire history of Earth and will continue occurring. If you ask me what I think about the anthropogenic contribution to the process – there is no common opinion in the scientific world: there are arguments both pro and contra.” And by the look I got from the person who had asked the question, I knew there and then I had no chances of getting the post.

As far as awareness-raising and communication with the public is concerned, the EC’s approach to the subject of climate change is merely brainwashing – in its relations with the public, the Commission does not present objective and impartial information, but literally preaches fear of man-made global warming [18].

I even shared this observation with the Commission in 2007 [21] in a reaction to several articles published in the Research*EU magazine. The critique was mentioned in Issue No. 54 of the magazine [22]; nevertheless, a look at the EC’s website on climate change [18] and its press releases on the G8 summit in Italy [23] reveals that as of today no steps have been taken to improve the Commission’s communication performance and bring it in compliance at least with journalism standards.

Having highlighted the lack of real science behind the policies developed and promoted by the European Commission and its brainwashing ‘awareness-raising’ approach, now I would like to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the Community institutions in the issue of climate change.

The gravest example of hypocrisy is the shuttling of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) between the Parliament’s two official seats in Brussels and Strasbourg. These trips have been reported to result in the release of about 20,000 tonnes of CO2 per year [24] (see also [25]).

Despite the Community’s legal commitment to cuts its greenhouse gas emissions and the MEPs’ requests for more stringent long-term climate goals [26], and contrary to a petition which gathered one million signatures within a few months in 2006 only [27] [28] and a 2008 written declaration signed by 286 (or 38,9% of all) MEPs [29] to put an end to the European Parliament’s commuting between Brussels and Strasbourg, the Parliament has done nothing to hear the voice of the taxpayers and to discontinue its environment-deteriorating shuttling practice [29] (see also [30]).

However, the European Parliament is not alone in its hypocritical fight against climate change: for example, Meglena Kuneva – the European Commissioner for Consumer Affairs from Bulgaria – is reported to have said that she had been travelling every week to Bulgaria this year [31].

I would like to finish my letter by asking the question, are only brainwashed applicants employed to serve the Community institutions, or are the officials of these institutions actually hypocrites who are brainwashing Europeans?

Svetoslav Apostolov

REFERENCES:
[1] 2009 G8 Summit website: http://www.g8italia2009.it/ (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[2] Commission of the European Communities’ website: http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[3] EurActiv. 2009. EU seeks two degrees Celsius pact at G8. [online]
URL: http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-seeks-degrees-celsius-pact-g8/article-183833 (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[4] Parr, M. 2009. Economics vs The Renewables Bigger Picture. [online]
URL: http://euractiv.blogactiv.eu/2009/07/07/economics-vs-the-renewables-bigger-picture/ (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[5] Gräs, T. 2009. How climate change will change your diet. [online]
URL: http://blogs.euobserver.com/gras/2009/07/02/how-climate-change-will-change-your-diet/ (site last accessed on 03.07.2009).

[6] EU Whoiswho directory: http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm? (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[7] Commission of the European Communities. 2007. Green Paper from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action” COM(2007) 354 final.
Available online:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52007DC0354:EN:NOT (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[8] Commission of the European Communities. 2009. White Paper “Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action” COM(2009) 147 final.
Available online:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0147:EN:NOT site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[9] Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Commission staff working document accompanying the White Paper “Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action” – Impact assessment SEC(2009) 387.
Available online:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009SC0387:EN:NOT (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[10] Seitz, F. 1996. A Major Deception on ‘Global Warming’. The Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition. ISSN: 00999660.
Available online:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[11] Durkin, M. 2007. The Great Global Warming Swindle. First shown on Channel 4 in March 2007.
Available online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870 (site last accessed on 11.06.2009).

[12] Singer, S. and D. Avery. 2007. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN-13: 978-0742551176.

[13] Santer, B. 1996. No Deception in Global Warming Report. The Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition. ISSN: 0099966.
Available online: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[14] Singer, S. 1996. Coverup in the Greenhouse? The Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition. ISSN: 00999660.
Available online: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_July11_96.pdf (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[15] U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 2009. U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009.
Available online: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7 (site last accessed on 08.06.2009).

[16] Friends of Science Society’s website: http://www.friendsofscience.org/ (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[17] Christy, J. 2007. No consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance. BBC. [online]
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm (site last accessed on 11.07.2009).

[18] Commission of the European Communities’ Climate Change website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm (site last accessed on 12.06.2009).

[19] Laverty, A. 2003. The Big Chill. First shown on BBC in November 2003.

[20] University of Calgary. 2005. Climate Catastrophe Cancelled.
Available online:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4468713209160533271&ei=4ulZSoKRO5nS2gK6_PHACA&q=Climate+Catastrophe+Cancelled&hl=en (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[21] Apostolov, S. 2007. Letter to the editor of the Research*EU magazine in a reaction to Issue No. 52 of the magazine.
Available online: http://www.geocities.com/globulcosmobg/Me_write_to_Claessens_ref_Research-EU.pdf (site last accessed on 03.07.2009).

[22] Research*EU team. 2007. Correspondence. Research*EU Issue No. 54.
Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu/54/article_5439_en.html (site last accessed on 03.07.2009).

[23] Commission of the European Communities. 2009. G8 – President Barroso on the results of the L’Aquila summit. [online]
URL: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/focus/G8_summit/index_en.htm (site last accessed on 12.07.2009).

[24] Eco-Logica Ltd. 2007. European Parliament: a study of the environmental costs of the European Parliament two-seat operation. [online]
URL: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/180/180441.eu_and_climate_change@en.pdf (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

[25] Greens, The. 2007. Climate change and the European Parliament: Damning report reveals the environmental damage of EP travelling circus. Press release. [online]
URL: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/180/180461.climate_change_and_the_european_parliame@en.htm (site last accessed on 06.05.2009).

[26] EurActiv. 2009. EU urged to reconsider strategic energy goals. [online]
URL: http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/eu-urged-reconsider-strategic-energy-goals/article-178733 (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

[27] Oneseat.eu website: http://www.oneseat.eu/ (site last accessed on 14.01.2009).

[28] EurActiv.com. 2006. One-seat Parliament campaign in EU Treaty pitfall. [online]
URL: http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/seat-parliament-campaign-eu-treaty-pitfall/article-158058 (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

[29] Alvaro, A., Kauppi, P.-N., Ries, F., Stihler, C., Trüpel, H. 2008. Written Declaration on holding all European Parliament plenary sessions in Brussels.
Available online:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P6-DCL-2008-0075+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

[30] Corbett, R. 2009. Eurosceptics block reform so able to continue attacking EU. [online]
URL: http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/labels/UKIP.html (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

[31] NDSV Silistra. 2009. Meglena Kuneva: We must know what we can achieve through the European Parliament. Press Release. [Meglena Kuneva: Triabva da znaem kakvo mozhem da postignem chrez Evropeiskia parlament. Pres reliiz] [online]
URL: http://ndsv-silistra.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post_1444.html (site last accessed on 05.06.2009).

Author :
Print

Comments

  1. As already outlined in my letter, I am not a climatologist. Therefore, I form my opinion by reading what prominent climatologists, astronomers and paleontologists (the people that actually do climate-related scientific research) write on the subject of climate change. And as far as the debunking of global cooling is concerned, I see that many scientists still support this theory [1]. Further to that, I see that more and more independent of the IPCC scientists support the theory that the observed climate change of which the IPCC rings all bells is nothing but a natural phenomenon driven by cosmic forces. For example, more than 100 scientists of various backgrounds signed an open letter to the UN Secretary-General in 2007 [2], in which they wrote:
    1) “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages”;
    2) “… it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions”;
    3) “…there has been no net global warming since 1998”;
    4) “… significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming”;
    5) “…it is irrational to apply the precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.”

    As I already wrote, in early 2009 there were more than 700 internationally renowned scientists who disagree with the IPCC’s claim of “man-made global warming”, amongst these even lead authors and contributors to the IPCC’s reports (see the respective references in the letter). On the subject of pseudo-science promoted by the IPCC I highly recommend Crichton’s article “Why Politicized Science is Dangerous” [3].

    Quite comprehensive articles debunking the myth of man-made global warming were published by Carter in 2008 [4], and by Jaworowski in 2007 [5]. Very interesting books on the nature of climate change were published by Svensmark and Calder in 2008 [6] and by Leroux in 2005 [7].

    In addition, there is research indicating that a part to the observed climate change might be due to improved environmental conditions [8] [9], while other research argues that environmental pollution could actually reduce the speed of global warming [10].

    Last but not least, a 2007 report published by Fenton and colleagues presented the results of a study revealing global warming on Mars [11] – where no man has even step a foot, not to speak of releasing CO2.

    Therefore, in my letter I do not claim that one of the two theories mentioned there is correct or final. I just point out that currently even scientists are not sure of the nature of climate change and which way it will go in the next 20 years and argue that focusing mitigations measures only on one probability is at least unwise.

    REFERENCES:
    [1] Friends of Science Society’s website: http://www.friendsofscience.org/ (site last accessed on 14.07.2009).

    [2] National Post. 2007. Don’t fight, adapt: We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change. Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dec. 13, 2007.
    Available online: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=165020 (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [3] Crichton, M. Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. [online]
    URL: http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [4] CARTER, R. 2008. Knock, knock: where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming? Economic Analysis & Policy Journal 32(2), 107-202.
    Available online: http://www.eap-journal.com/vol_38_iss_2.php (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [5] Jaworowski, Z. 2007. CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time. 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring/Summer 2007.
    Available online: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [6] Svensmark, H. and N. Calder. 2008. The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change. Icon Books Ltd., UK. ISBN: 978-1840468-66-3.

    [7] Leroux, M. 2005. Global Warming – Myth or Reality? Praxis Publishing Ltd., UK. ISBN: 3-540-23909-X.

    [8] Sington, D. 2005. Global Dimming. First shown on BBC in 2005.
    Available online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382 (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [9] BBC. 2009. Europe’s lost mist ‘boosts heat’. [online]
    URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7838358.stm (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

    [10] Schiermeier, Q. 2009. Rising air pollution clouds climate debate. Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2009.159.
    Available online: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090312/full/news.2009.159.html (site last accessed on 14.03.2009).

    [11] Fenton, L., Geissler, P and Haberle, R. 2007. Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars. Nature 446, doi:10.1038/nature.05718.
    Available online: http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf (site last accessed on 14.07.09).

  2. For someone having a go at the IPCCC for not being a proper peer review process, I was amused to see that you have referenced the science fiction author Micheal Crichton… and also Friends of Science, a conservative Canadian front of ex-engineers with financial ties to the oil majors…
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

    I am also a biologist by training and I would think you would know better than to base your opinions on such flimsy sources.. in fact only two of your sources are from peer reviwed journals (Nature), only one of which is a paper, and neither of which disupte man-made global warming. The other, by the economist R Carter has no scientific basis and is really an opinion piece by an economist. Come on!

  3. Dear Alasdair Cameron,

    First of all, be advised that most of all cited articles and all books and films have in fact been peer-reviewed. Maybe not by advocates of man-made global warming but that is not a must in the peer-review process.

    Second, Crichton’s essay is referred to as an example to what pseudo-science leads and not as a source on climate change.

    Third, your allegation that Friends of Science have “financial ties to the oil majors” is a mere speculation. I would very much like to read the peer-reviewed source from which you derived this information.

    Fourth, for more peer-reviewed articles invalidating the theory of man-made global warming you can read my remarks on E. Rhein’s response to the above letter to the editor:

    http://spapostolov.blogactiv.eu/2009/07/16/remarks-on-%e2%80%9ca-response-to-%e2%80%98eu-institutions-hypocritical-fight-against-climate-change%e2%80%99%e2%80%9d/

    Fifth, I highly recommend to you the following articles in the Nature magazine which were not available at the time of writing of the letter and the remarks:

    Bard, E., Rickaby, R. 2009. Migration of the subtropical front as a modulator of glacial climate. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 380.

    Carslaw, K. 2009. Cosmic rays, clouds and climate. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 332.

    Zahn, R. 2009. Beyond the CO2 connection. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 335.

    Tollefson, J. 2009. Climate’s smoky spectre. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7251, p. 29.

    as well as these articles from other peer-reviewed publications:

    Carslaw, K., Harrison, R., Kirkby, J. 2002. Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate. Science Vol. 298 No. 5599, p. 1732. doi: 10.1126/science.1076964.

    Edwards, P., Schneider, S. 1997. The 1995 IPCC report: Broad consensus or “scientific cleansing”? Ecofable/Ecoscience 1:1 (1997).
    Available online:
    http://www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Edwards, P., Schneider, S. 2001. Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Miller, C. and P. Edwards (eds.) 2001. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Kristjansson, J., Kristiansen, J., Kaas, E. 2003. Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update. Advances in Space Research. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.040.

    Marsh, N., Svensmark, H. 2000. Cosmic rays, clouds and climate. Space Science Reviews Vol. 94 No 1-2, p. 215.
    Available online:
    http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/SSR_Paper.pdf (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Last but not least, I always thought that the global warming advocates’ most loved argument in support of their thesis “If you have a different opinion, you are paid by the dark side!” is not only insulting the opponent but also encroaching on democracy and pluralism.

    As a trained biologist you should know that debate is the normal state of science and that truth is born of argument. Why then do you not disprove your opponents using scientific arguments but always using the same worn out argument that whoever opposes your view is paid by someone to do so?

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept that there are people whose point of view on a subject differs from yours? Or that your opinion may in fact be the wrong one?

  4. PS. One more thing – the next time you criticize someone’s sources at least read them first.

    Had you read Carter’s article or had you done a background check on the author you would have found out that Robert Carter is “a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.”

    Source: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

  5. Dear Alasdair Cameron,

    First of all, please be advised that all cited scientific articles and all books and films have in fact been peer-reviewed. Maybe not by advocates of man-made global warming but that is not a must in the peer-review process. And, unlike the IPCC’s reports, Crichton’s essay and the newspaper’s articles do not pretend to be peer-reviewed.

    Second, the next time you criticize someone’s sources or try to discredit them read the cited articles first. Had you read Carter’s article or had you at least done a background check on the author you would have found out that Robert Carter is “a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.”

    Source: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Third, your allegation that Friends of Science have “financial ties to the oil majors” is a mere speculation. Following your logic, since neither SourceWatch nor the referred to “The Globe and Mail” is a peer-reviewed source, the information on the cited by you website is not trustworthy. Therefore I would very much like to read the same information from a peer-reviewed source/s.

    Speaking of funding, on the following website you can read that Greenpeace is funded from “extremely right-wing sources” which are compared to neo-Nazi:
    http://badecology.blogspot.com/2008/07/greenpeace-funding.html (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Following your logic of coupling an organization’s funding with its credibility, the above means that whatever Greenpeace has to say on the issue of climate change should not be trusted either.

    Further to that, in the film “Environmental Hysteria” [1] you can hear Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, saying that he left the organization when the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who “cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business, and very little to do with science or ecology.” So… How would you comment on this one?

    Fourth, Crichton’s essay (which is not a scientific article!) is referred to as an example to what pseudo-science leads and not as a source on climate change.

    Fifth, for more peer-reviewed articles invalidating the theory of man-made global warming you can read my remarks on E. Rhein’s response to the above letter to the editor:

    http://spapostolov.blogactiv.eu/2009/07/16/remarks-on-%e2%80%9ca-response-to-%e2%80%98eu-institutions-hypocritical-fight-against-climate-change%e2%80%99%e2%80%9d/

    Sixth, I highly recommend to you reading the following articles in the Nature magazine which were not available at the time of writing of the letter and the remarks:

    Bard, E., Rickaby, R. 2009. Migration of the subtropical front as a modulator of glacial climate. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 380.

    Carslaw, K. 2009. Cosmic rays, clouds and climate. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 332.

    Zahn, R. 2009. Beyond the CO2 connection. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7253, p. 335.

    Tollefson, J. 2009. Climate’s smoky spectre. Nature Vol. 460 Issue 7251, p. 29.

    as well as these articles from other peer-reviewed publications:

    Carslaw, K., Harrison, R., Kirkby, J. 2002. Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate. Science Vol. 298 No. 5599, p. 1732. doi: 10.1126/science.1076964.

    Edwards, P., Schneider, S. 1997. The 1995 IPCC report: Broad consensus or “scientific cleansing”? Ecofable/Ecoscience 1:1 (1997).
    Available online:
    http://www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Edwards, P., Schneider, S. 2001. Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. In Miller, C. and P. Edwards (eds.) 2001. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Kristjansson, J., Kristiansen, J., Kaas, E. 2003. Solar activity, cosmic rays, clouds and climate – an update. Advances in Space Research. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.02.040.

    Marsh, N., Svensmark, H. 2000. Cosmic rays, clouds and climate. Space Science Reviews Vol. 94 No 1-2, p. 215.
    Available online:
    http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/SSR_Paper.pdf (site last accessed on 23.07.2009).

    Last but not least, the global warming proponents’ most loved argument in support of their thesis “If you have a different opinion, you are paid by the dark side!” undermines the very foundations of science.

    As a trained biologist you should know that debate is the normal state of science and that truth is born of argument. Why then do you not disprove your opponents using scientific arguments but always using the same worn out bogus argument that whoever opposes your view is paid by someone to do so?

    I have always wondered why it is impossible for the advocates of man-made global warming to accept that there are people whose point of view on the subject differs from theirs. Or that their standpoint may in fact be the wrong one. In my opinion their refusal to accept the very idea of a different opinion on the subject not only insults the opponent but even encroaches on democracy and pluralism.

    [1] Jilette, P. and J. Teller. 2001. Environmental Hysteria. Showtime.
    Available online: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=13527267 (site last accessed on 24.07.2009).

Comments are closed.