Vail Daily letter: Peer-reviewed science supports human-caused global warming | VailDaily.com

Vail Daily letter: Peer-reviewed science supports human-caused global warming

"Logical fallacies on climate change" (May 21) cites exactly one individual to support its case for climate change denial: Dr. Patrick Moore (not a climate scientist), who is an "expert" (meaning he's on the payroll) of the Heartland Institute, which is the favorite front group at the heart of the multimillion-dollar climate denial operation clandestinely funded by ExxonMobil, Peabody Coal, the Koch brothers and other major fossil-fuel corporations (Scientific American online, "Dark Money" and "How to Make Friends and Bamboozle People About Climate Change" and "Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong").

Heartland used to be in the business of hiring fake "doctors" to deny that smoking causes lung cancer. (The Union of Concerned Scientists website "Climate Deception Dossiers" and desmogblog.org, one of Time's Top 10 Blogs).

The "fallacies" letter's other source of support is the infamous 1997 Oregon Petition, long-since proven to be a fraud. The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the National Academy of Science. They weren't. Signatories included names such as Mickey Mouse and The Spice Girls. It was co-published by ExxonMobil-backed George C. Marshall Group. Google Scientific American's "Skepticism about Skeptics" for more on the notorious Oregon Petition.

In opposition to the assertions of the "fallacies" letter: The National Academy of Science and every other scientific body of national or international standing. NASA's website has a list of all 230 of them. Also, all climate scientists, worldwide, publishing in peer-reviewed science journals concur on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

A study by The National Physical Sciences Consortium of every peer-reviewed climate science paper published, worldwide, in the past two years — more than 24,000 articles by 69,406 climate scientists — showed 99.9 percent scientific consensus, and a similar Harvard study showed 100 percent consensus. Importantly, the National Academy of Sciences website says that the more highly respected the climate scientists are, the stronger the support for Anthropogenic Global Warming is. The National Academy of Science website shows it supports the more widely cited figure of more than 97 percent scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In contrast, there are a handful of professional climate deniers who all secretly take money from fossil-fuel corporations to produce pseudoscience that helps the industry to maintain the fiction that there is some kind of "debate" about climate change in the scientific community. You can see a rogue's gallery of these deniers-for-hire by Googling "desmogblog Heartland Poster." None of them are climate scientists.

Recommended Stories For You

For real climate science, rely on publications that rely on peer-reviewed science papers, such as Scientific American, National Geographic and Smithsonian and online sites such as those of The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Google "What We Know" for their climate-change site), NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

If you want to understand climate science better, an excellent way to do that is to use the award-winning interactive site skepticalscience.org. Volunteer climate scientists run it. You can read more about skepticalscience.org in another Scientific American online article: "How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming."

Pete Kuntz

Denver