What follows is a letter to the editors of the Harrisburg Patriot-News. The P-N editors frequently don’t publish these letters, and when they do, they’re frequently abridged. There’s an even higher probability that they won’t publish this one, since it takes them to task for their sloppy writing and thinking. Also, the editors won’t publish the references in any case. So, for your reading pleasure:
On February 19, the Patriot-News published an editorial decrying the fact that some “global warming deniers” are using our cold, snowy winter as evidence that global warming is a myth. They stated that “global warming has nothing to do with how cold or hot it is at a given moment.” O.K., this is true, but what about the last 15 years?
Global warming debate: don’t get snowed by skeptics [sic] stance
Professor Phil Jones, former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, recently admitted that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995. Professor Jones is now the former director because he was caught trying to suppress this information. When his mathematical climate models processed temperature data from that 15-year period, they suddenly stopped forecasting any further temperature increases. He was therefore forced to throw out that data to maintain the fiction of global warming. Doing so wasn’t good or honest science.
The Patriot-News editors should read their own front page, specifically the one from February 21 headlined, “Weather forecasters say view is hazy.” In that article, weather forecaster Richard Grumm tells us why these models are “hazy” at best, and it has to do with math, not science: “No matter how good your models are and how well you interpret the information, you can’t put everything into a model as is…” What Mr. Grumm failed to mention, but is equally true, is that weather and climate modelers don’t always even know how to quantity all those variables, nor even sometimes know what they all are.
Weather forecasters say view is hazy
What’s true for weather forecasting models is just as true for climate forecasting models, because they both rely on the same basic correlative relationships to do their forecasting. This fact is why there is no “proof” for global warming, much less for “anthropogenic” global warming. The best anyone can say is that the climate is probably changing, because it is indeed always changing. The Patriot-News editors should not only try to read all the articles they publish, they should try to understand them before writing opinion pieces.
Update: on March 2, the paper did actually publish a version of this letter:
Climate changes often are cyclical
I liked my title a lot better.