Show us the data on climate change
Kathy Dawes’ letter (June 1) again points to the need for the Daily News or an expert group to review the actual facts concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and report the truth.
There needs to be a clear distinction made between climate change and AGW. Almost everybody agrees there is some climate change. The real issues are: Is this level of change critical? If it is, then what is the cause?
Most scientists will agree that at least a small portion of the climate change over the past 50 years can be attributed to increased production of CO2.
Beyond this there is significant disagreement over model projections of AGW. I am not aware of a single climate alarmist catastrophic prediction in the last 50 years that has come true.
There are lists of dire climate alarmist predictions that have not come true. The proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security should conduct an independent review of the science that underpins official government climate reports, such as the latest National Climate Assessment.
A coalition of almost 40 leading policy organizations and over 100 prominent leaders signed a letter stating that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained.
In multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions (www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17500-u-s-agencies-accused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming).
The media and a religious body of climate alarmists continue to parrot “consensus” without producing the supporting data that can be verified by other scientists and the public. Show us the data supporting your zeal that we might have grounds to believe your demands for drastic action.
Lower Snake River dams not an important source of power
According to BPA.gov the lower Snake River dams produce 5 percent of the total hydroelectric power in the region. Furthermore, hydroelectric power comprises 59 percent of our total energy production.
This means that removal of the Snake River dams would reduce our power production by 3 percent. Part of this could be made up by reducing the curtailments on wind and solar that are now in place.
When there are high river flows, wind and solar harvests are shutdown so as not to overload the electrical grid. Curtailment is one of the reasons why not all the windmills are spinning on a reasonably windy day. More importantly, we export the equivalent of 21 percent of our hydroelectric power to Canada and other states (EIA.gov). The need to replace the power produced by the dams is a bogus argument.
Some insight into Cook’s 97 percent
The Moscow-Pullman Daily News has printed an overheated deluge of climate debate letters. So many cite Cook’s (2016) conclusion that 97 percent of scientists find that humans cause global warming. I read deeper and found that his inferences are based on categorizations of 11,984 scientific paper abstracts.
Using his own categories, 0.3 percent conclude that man causes all warming, 8.3 percent that man causes over 50 percent, up to a total of 32.6 percent includes the less than 50 percent category. He totally ignores the 66.4 percent (7,930 papers) that were uncertain and expressed no concrete opinion.
Where does the reported and cited ad nauseum 97 percent come from? It appears to be a ratio of only the extreme tails of the inference distribution.
There are 97 percent more extreme believers than there are extreme deniers if you completely ignore the majority who say that evidence is still inconclusive. Endless regurgitation of the 97 percent sound bite is an example of perception management bias at its best.
Mark Twain (1883) opined: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment in fact.”