Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : opinions : columns February 06, 2016

6/12/2012 10:00:00 PM
Column: Global warming's victims know it's real
Online references

A variety of links mostly about permafrost thawing. Maybe too many but pick through them and you get a flavor of what's out there.

News Miner 1

News Miner 2

Alaska Public

Tribal Health Consortium

and their Center for Climate Health

Alaskan Radio

and a transcript of one story

Nunatsiaq newspaper

Natural Resources Canada 1

Natural Resources Canada 2

Informational flier from U. of Newfoundland permafrost project.

Alaska Public on fish farther North

The Telegraph on jelly fish

Goleta Beach erosion

Phillipines Senate bulletin on coral problems

Canadian Star on species moving North

Mongabay about coral reef problems

Tom Cantlon
Courier Columnist

I don't know much about global warming, but I know who does. I tend to believe the scientists, but I'm not referring to them. It's a complex subject and I'm sure scientists will find they've got some details wrong, but they've been pretty settled on the core aspects of the issue for a long time now. And in making national and international decisions we have to go with what's known. If the doctor says you've got cancer, that the odds are very high you only have a short time, that the treatment that's suggested wouldn't be easy but has high odds of success, what are you going to do? Yes, there's a slight chance they have it wrong and you have a lot more time left. There's a slight chance, if that's the case, that years from now they'll be more certain of what treatment is best in which cases. But odds are you don't have the time to wait for that. So what are you going to do? And oh, by the way, before long the treatment will have you better than ever. In global terms, that would mean great gains in energy conservation and in renewable, low-impact energy generation.

When I read reports from scientists, I have a hard time understanding what it means in real terms. As I say, though, I know who does know about global warming. For one, you could ask the taxpayers who will have to pay for changes to Goleta Beach County Park near Los Angeles. The rising sea level is forcing them to move the coastal bike path and buried utility lines inland. I suppose they could abandon the eroding bike path but the utility lines would certainly need to be redone. They wouldn't choose to do that, especially in this economy, if it wasn't necessary.

Or the tribal elders in Point Hope, Alaska. Their ice cellars, which are simply dug into the frozen ground, could always be relied on to stay firm with frozen walls, and keep meat frozen. Now the meat isn't frozen and the walls are dangerously crumbling. You know how here we worry about defensible space around houses in case of fires? How we have public information available and try to make it common knowledge? For them it's much the same with thawing permafrost. There are lots of public information programs about, for instance, where not to build lest it be on thawing permafrost and likely to sink into it. It's a common topic in their news. It gets to be a big expensive project when it messes up roads, gas pipelines, fuel tank farms.

In the village of Selawick, it's messing up their water and sewage pipes, all of which used to be either securely set into permafrost or set on top of it, but are now in sinking mud. The entire village of Newtok is having to be moved 9 miles away because the Ninglick River is eroding its shoreline and soon the entire village area will be in the river. That happens by other rivers, but this hadn't been a worry here in the past because the village was built on permafrost, which kept shoreline erosion from being a problem.

Or the fish off the Alaskan shores where they're finding what used to be more southerly species showing up further north. Or the normally warm-water venomous jellyfish that have caused the British to close beaches. Or the Gray Whales that made their way from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the newly melted northern passage. Or the coral reefs that have had massive die-offs. Or the species of plants and animals that have migrated north that are so unheard of the Inuit traditional languages don't have names for them.

There may be some things that would happen anyway. Maybe an eroding shoreline would happen anyway. But there's a growing list of these types of things. Some never heard of before, like those species the Inuits don't have words for. Some so big, like coral dying in places around the globe. Many are actors that have no bias, no interest in our debates, no concern about how accurate our science is. Permafrost, coral, jellyfish, have no stake in any of that, they just react to the conditions around them. And reacting they are.

Tom Cantlon is a longtime local resident, business owner and writer. Contact him at TomCantlon@TomCantlon.com.

    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Prescott Valley businessman takes plea in stabbing case (4279 views)

•   Rx drugs, pot 'wax' seized near Cordes Lakes (1961 views)

•   Prescott's Arizona Ranger company is back in business (1470 views)

•   Prescott: Budget shortfall expected to continue (1271 views)

•   Ducey's budget gives JTEDs grant money that slights rural districts, Plumb says (1205 views)

Reader Comments

Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012
Article comment by: R J

Don't fret Tony......no matter how logical and factual your argument is, you will always have fools like Citi Zen, Tom Steele and Lyle Prentiss trying to discredit it will fallacious thinking and name-calling. They must be the new order of Republicans.

Posted: Saturday, June 16, 2012
Article comment by: Is Mr. Zen The Class Bully

Mr. Zen, a singleminded gentleman who has a very difficult time reading content! He again, accuses Dr. Krzysik of plagiarism. Again, Mr. Zen should challenge the questionable portions of Dr. Krzysik’s text by using the Google Search Engine. With a bit of effort Mr. Zen could actually check the text in question and see if he finds the words written anywhere else on the internet? Any place other than this Courier article or Dr. Krzysick’s previous Courier article. Mr. Zen has not bothered to do that, and until he does, he is making false accusations without a shred of proof that Dr. Krzysik has plagiarized. Mr. Zen, sadly, does not realize that Dr. Krzysik cannot plagiarize himself. Mr. Zen also does not realize how the scientific process works, how data is gathered, organized, stored, constantly refined over time and utilized as a base for the next research. Every scientists stands on the shoulders of those who who preceded them and those that are current colleagues. You will have noticed that Dr. Krzysik has carefully cited these colleagues, past and present in his text.
Sadly Mr. Zen still has no data, nothing to add to the conversation supporting his point of view, all he seems to do is accuse, denigrate and abuse. No logic, no data, just mean spirited name calling.
Therefore, Mr. Zen’s behavior sinks him to the very lowest criterion of internet posting. He joins those using Rush Limbaughesque mean-spirited commentary, name calling, and baseless fabrications ”drum circle boy”, and “Yeah, now we see who the clowns really are.”. Close your eyes for a moment and repeat these phrases in your mind, imagine, could these be the very same words hurled by the class bully on an elementary school playground? Are these the same type of phrases used by children with low self esteem, those with a poor self image? Perhaps Mr. Zen’s development, for some reason was arrested at that level, about the same age as a child learning to play “T Ball”.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Uptite N Rite

All the ice ages before were caused by?
In our age it comes across as a way to tax and control people.Yes i beleave in climate change in a natural non human controlled natural way.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Funny Stuff

Citizen, I bet you struck out a lot in T-Ball. Your logic, comments, and extrapolations are amusing. Keep it up, your quite a hoot.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Citi Zen

Better late than never, Tony. Thanks for admitting that you borrowed the information from others but didn't attribute it in your first comment post. I'm sure those you cite in your follow up are fine the the "better late than never" concept as well. Or not.

Then there's your buddy who has some sort of obsession with "T-ball" (strange), who blindly assumed that you had used all of your own data and information in your first post. Yeah, now we see who the clowns really are. But some how I still give you some credit for admitting what you did. That's a start, drum circle boy.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Rational Viewpoint

Most of the scientific community supports man-made global climate change. We as a society depend on the scientific community to guide us because they are the experts. Yet, just because we don’t like what they are telling us, we deny the truth.
This is a lot like a man who goes to the doctor. The doctor tells him that he has to discontinue a certain activity that he really likes or risk death. He goes to several other doctors and they all tell him the same thing, yet he continues to carry out the risky activity. Since he likes this activity, he rationalizes that even though the doctors are highly educated professionals, in this case, they really don’t know what they are talking about.

It seems that most of the people that are denying man-made climate change are either totally ignorant of the science involved (probably from watching too much Fox News) or are influenced by extreme, right-wing, propaganda from Limbaugh and others on hate radio. If we do not start curtailing our carbon output, our children and grandchildren will pay a heavy price for our failure to act.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Tony Krzysik

Citix Zen claims that I plagiarized and copy-pasted my editorial from “far left publications” when I attempted to present factual science-based climate change information to curious and critical thinking Prescott citizens. The synthesis and structure of my editorial is wholly mine, but of course the information I present, and all the relevant data are in technical publications, some of which I identify. I actually did some copy-paste, but it was from my Courier editorials of 31 March and 2 April earlier this year, also dealing with climate change. I used to teach students in a thesis writing class the dangers of plagiarism and how to avoid it. I have reread my editorial, and in the writing there is not the slightest red-flag that something was copy-pasted or plagiarized. The only info that I can tangentially see, is the rather detailed data that I present on the fossil fuel money connections to Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling, and I do clearly cite Gelbspan 1998 as the source for these specifics. Gelbspan is one of the most reliable and authoritative investigative journalists.

These are my own ideas, but they do indeed parallel the data and knowledge base of climate scientists, reliable science investigative journalists, and scientists that have read the professional publications on climate change. I have no idea of the “far left publications” that I am accused of reading and plagiarizing. I subscribe to exactly 25 peer-reviewed science journals. All of which are published by our scientific societies (e.g., Ecological Society of America, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Wildlife Society, Ornithological Societies of North America, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, etc.). Many other science journals I assess online. Pretty much all the data and info that I discussed in my Courier editorial can be easily accessed in science-based climate change books. My knowledge and my climate change reports have come from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC 4th Assessment Report 2007, around 3000 pages), and hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals especially Science (AAAS), and specialized earth science, atmospheric science, and physics journals.

It is obvious that Citiz Zen does not know me, because the VERY LAST THING that anyone would accuse me of is ‘bs-ing” in science or math. I NEVER bs, because I either know it, or on many occasions say, “I will look it up”. I guess “bs” could also be interpreted to signify inconvenient truths or factual info that someone like Citiz Zen does not want to hear (i.e., cognitive dissonance).

I have over 50 years of research and teaching experience mostly in ecology, environmental science, experimental design and statistical analysis/modeling, but my primary training and early work was in chemistry, physics, and advanced math. One of my main technical strengths is the summarizing of huge amounts of highly complex and often contradictory information and data. In this task, I know that I am an honest broker, and I have done this since high school in extremely diverse areas: ecology, biology, statistics, earth sciences, chemistry, and physics. However, I do indeed have a bias, and that is definitely on the side of science and logic.

I have acquired a very strong interest in the details of climate change, because it is having dramatic documented effects on the ecosystems I am studying, and the future indeed looks much worse. Additionally, the fascinating thing about climate science, although researched by highly specialized scientists, is that it integrates all the individual science disciplines. I took an interest in the details of Michael Mann’s research, because we were heavily involved in the same statistical technique – Principal Components Analysis. Although the desired outcome is the variable reduction or simplification in the structure of inter-correlated variables, it can become quite complex, because there are an incredible number of approaches. Mann was using it in interpreting tree-ring and other proxy temperature data, while I was deciphering species-environment relationships.

Who are those four climate scientists that I cite that found and identified the incorrect hypotheses, technical errors, and mistaken assumptions of the three famous climate change denier scientists (Lindzen, Michaels, Balling) that are SO OFTEN cited by the denier ECHO CHAMBER, and what were their professional positions at the time of this “climate change controversy”? Were they crackpots from some liberal magazine?

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D. – Director of the Interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Program

Jerry Mahlman, Ph.D. – Director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, and Chair of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth Scientific Advisory Committee

Benjamin Santer, Ph.D. – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison

Tom Wigley, Ph.D. – Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D., Research Ecologist and Statistician

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: John Galt

I've come to the belief there may be something to the global warming theories. I remember as a kid snowbowl being open for skiing by thanksgiving with the earliest snow sometimes coming just after halloween. That almost never happens now and for the last ten years, snowbowl has been lucky to be open by christmas. And it rarely stays open into late March like it used to. Just one observation, but there are many other scientific examples that don't rely on just my memories. It seems hard to deny objectiviely that a change is occuring.

So is global warming man-made or a natural climate cycle? It doesn't matter. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels anyway. We need to contain the pollution of our environment anyway. Surely both sides can agree on that. There doesn't have to be a contradiction between being a capitalist and a conservationist.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Response to T Ball Vs. Major League

Nice try, no prize.

There is an old adage: "The more they spoke of integrity the faster we counted the silverware..".

It is the same with all these supposed Climate Change Experts and their left wing rah-rah section, who are forever and endlessly giving us specifics from their oh-so impressive resume, replete with outright insult and veiled threats over what will happen if we don't listen and comply.

The earth gets warmer the earth gets colder and every summer, like swallows returning to Capistrano, out come the self-annointed PhD's from the Universidad de Pollo Poquito (College of Chicken Little) with the latest end of the world scenario we should all heed or perish if neglecting to be impressed.

Well, I am not impressed and neither is growing body of legitimate scientists who recognize bull puckery when it is presented.

From methane gas leaking out of peet bogs in the UK, to sunshine energy being released by coal burning, to dinosaurs linked plankton producing oil the great "scientists" see nothing but pending disaster and warn of catastrophe...unless they get a bigger grant to do research next year.

Thus, please give a single, just one, singular example of mankind activity where the temperature of the globe has been directly raised or lowered.

Just one simple reality, not Piltdown Man like bleats of scientific purity, not pseudo-science babble about Ozone Layers and Greenhouse Gas...just a single clear evidence where something humans accomplished changed the global climate.

Hey, I will make it easier still. How about just: changed the weather in your town for 3 days.

Should be a snap for you lofty brained scientists.

(No cut & paste please...boring!)

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: R J

I think that Lyle P., Tom S. and Citi Z. believe that the earth was created by God for our use to do with as we please. Not good logic. This is the 21st century. We are seeing the consequences of this fallacious thinking.........yet we still pursue this destructive path to extinction. I thought humans we're supposed to be intelligent.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: open book

Interesting point, Sheesh. Trashing something created by an entity one professes to love has a very hypocritical ring to it.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: open book

Thank you Mr. Kryzik for your comment with a wealth of information and resources.

Citi-Zen: Insults do not make a good argument.

Whether we believe in the reality of climate change or not, it will happen or not. As Mr. Canton points out, the conservative thing to do would be to plan for it but hope it doesn't happen. We may do a few unnecessary things but none of them would be detrimental to our environment. Taking the attitude of ignoring the possibility and doing nothing to plan for it, even continuing to do things to exacerbate it, if it is true, is, well, irresponsible. It is like not having any savings for a "rainy day fund." Someone else is going to have to bail you out. I don't understand how this attitude is so ferverently embraced by those who hold personal responsibility in such high regard.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: lyle sentiss: Response to Tony K & Tom C.

Yes, yes my friends the Chicken Little complex can be both pervasive and persuasive, but in the end your conclusions and fears are misplaced.

In short, while the Run & Hide Climate Change types persuade, they do not convince.

Here is the bottom line problem you man made Global Climate change people have, and frankly where your entire concluding argument goes haywire. As Follows:

It is undisputed scientific fact that over the eons, before any industrialization took place, prior to (what was passing as) mankind building cities, burning fossil fuels, or even discovering fire in the first place the earth, of its own accord, changed climate many times. The poles shifted. Oceans rose and receded. Land mass spread then went underwater, then re-appeared in volcanic activity.

In more modern times the Vikings were forced from the northern realms dues to increasingly bitter cold as a mini-Ice Age swept Europe. (All this and not an idling SUV in sight.!)

Knowing this, how can you possibly conclude that man kind is even remotely responsible for any aspect of global climate.?

You cannot.! The reason it is undoable, in any intellectually honest fasthion, is that man made global climate change is a hoax. A scientific fraud like so many others we have seen come and go over the years. Al Gore making himself rich off this one does not make it any more plausible.

My advice get over it. But you won't. Instead you will cajole, rant, cut & paste, fingerpoint, pout, and scream while demanding more tax money, higher taxes, and more inconvenience to try solving the 'problem' of a non-existent dilemma.

Just as higher taxes did not put a single drop of water into Watson Lake, your calling for global government action (which means taking money from the USA, and giving it away to other peoples) will not lower the temperature in Cleveland a single degree.

If the globe is getting hotter, likely, or there is a significant climate change ahead, probable, we as a species and nation will need MORE not less sources of energy. We must produce more. Constraining ourselves physically, or taxing the economy out of viability will have no effect whatsover except to make us poorer and less able to surving as a culture and INDEPENDENT nation.

Think harder.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Sheesh Deluxe

So many people care more about who created the Earth than whether or not we should take care of what was created.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: T-Ball Vs The Major Leagues

It is amusing to read text response like “Citiz Zen’s, “Also, try not to copy-and-paste so much of your babbling commentary from far left publications next time. Along with that sneaky, dishonest method of debate is that you are plagiarizing.”! If Mr. Zen’s would take Dr. Krzysik’s entire article and take two or three sentences at a time, place them into the Google search engine, Mr. Zen would find that the only place where these words have been used before are in the very Courier article that we are now reading, or in articles that Dr. Krzysik has published previously. They are his words, they are his thoughts, they are supported by actual research that he has done himself or is in the body of research that he is very familiar with. He does not have to plagiarize, he understands, at great depth, the material that he has spent a lifetime researching! Laymen like Mr. Zen are astounded, stunned when a very bright expert actually shows up on one of these threads. They become slack jawed and have to resort to, what they usually do, denigrate, “try not to copy-and-paste”, belittle “(whatever)”, “Naughty drum-circle boy.”, and besmirch “They have for the first time allowed a comment with the full, unabbreviated term for "b.s." in it (Tony Krzysik, paragraph 4). My goodness. Not to mention the person using that particular term is spewing a lot of that himself.”. Mr. Zen finds himself facing a very bright, accomplished, professional researcher. A PhD level, published scientist, he really is a Research Ecologist and Statistician, who obviously does not need to drop to the level of Mr. Zen and his ilk with Limbaughesque name calling and mean-spirited commentary. To plagiarize, with modification, and with apologies Mr. Stuff’s text below… Citiz Zen is benched, still trying to hit the T Ball, Tony's playing in the pro's hitting home runs.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Teal Scientist follow the data not the money

It is still a hypothesis until proven. The fact we are having this discussion in itself proves man made global warming is not a proven theory of real science. At best it is a consensus of scientist who believe they are right.

A smoking gun in all this, "Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1xplkZm2V

Real scientist follow the data not the money.

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012
Article comment by: Citiz Zen

Well, well. It's a first in the Courier. They have for the first time allowed a comment with the full, unabbreviated term for "b.s." in it (Tony Krzysik, paragraph 4). My goodness. Not to mention the person using that particular term is spewing a lot of that himself.

At the beginning of that paragraph, the esteemed "Research Ecologist" (whatever) says: "There is NO controversy among current climate science researchers concerning human-driven climate change. Every credible science organization on earth (without a single exception) has publicly gone on record that climate change is real, is human driven, and it is a very serious threat to societies, economies, and ecosystems."

Yeah, Tony, you wouldn't ever spout any "b.s.", would you now? Also, try not to copy-and-paste so much of your babbling commentary from far left publications next time. Along with that sneaky, dishonest method of debate is that you are plagiarizing. And when you promote the lies and deceptive statements in your plagiarized comments, you are further perpetrating those lies. Naughty drum-circle boy.

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: Funny Stuff

Lets see, who should I believe. Tom Steele or Tony Krzysik. Hm... Tom's in little league, second string and Tony's in the pro's. Guess I'll have to sleep on that.

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: Data Equals Facts

In response to Tom Steele: Data = Facts.
Data is information collected from empirical observations. It is the "interpretation" of the data, or facts, that may differ. Get your semantics right!!

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: To Michelle Star

Wow, do you feel better have that rant! So, I suppose that everything else that is wrong with the world today is because of a Republican? Even as an independent I would say that is a little narrow minded!

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: Some will believe and some won't

We can't talk corporate America, most Republicans and people with concrete for brains into believing what seems obvious. But seriously, if we get hundreds of thousands of indivduals who do believe to take action, maybe we could accomplish something. Besides voting for people who take this seriously, what can we do individually? Every time certain subjects come up, they are beat to death by rhetoric, lots of heat, but no real action.

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: Ryan Jensen

@ Tony Krzysik


Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: R J

Check out "What a Way to Go" on You Tube if you want some food for thought.

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: R J

Current Carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is about 300 ppm, and rising rapidly. The exponential rise in concentration started about the time of the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th century and has been rising rapidly since the 1970's. When it reaches 700-750 ppm, a majority of the glacial ice on the planet will be gone.....it will be curtains for the human race. That is the unfortunate fate of our offspring.. You can deny it all you want, but I think it is cruel to do this to our progeny.

Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012
Article comment by: Tony Krzysik

Climate change denial is currently right up there along with intelligent design creationism, 6,000 year old earth, and birthers. Denial of anthropogenic climate change has for some time now left the realm of chemistry and physics, and is now the active research problem of social psychologists and political scientists. Yes indeed – from heating and cooling watts/sqm climate forcings, the complex roles of clouds in global circulation physical process models, ocean-atmosphere feedbacks and right into the parallel universe of the delusions and illusions technically described as cognitive dissonance, confirmatory bias, motivated reasoning, and selective exposure. Chris Mooney, the outstanding science investigative journalist, summarizes beautifully this modern research in his latest book (2012, see at Amazon.com). Of course, the practical realist could easily wave-off all this technical jargon, and simply and correctly attribute it to the power and influence of billions of dollars.

Courier readers, who are curious about the reality of climate change and are critical thinkers, have many books to choose from, but a few web sites are particularly useful (see below). I have found that a brief book by a sociologist documenting the effects of climate change on a small native Alaskan village to possess an excellent brief overview of climate change that is well written, accurate, and not technical (Kivalina: A Climate Change Story, 2011, Christine Shearer).

One of the most informative books that I have ever read is Michael Mann’s (Penn State) “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (2012)”. Mann is prolific at publishing very technical physics and heavy statistical analysis articles for science journals, but this does not usually translate to writing clear, informative, investigative, and riveting books for the non-scientific public, as this book certainly is. Excellent books usually focus on and cover a single topic, while Mann does three. Although he summarizes climate change, his two other outstanding stories are incredibly presented as the central theme of the book – how science and scientists actually work and research findings gradually progress, and the vicious professional and very personal attacks on scientists and their research, when it interferes with corporate special interests and political agendas.

There is NO controversy among current climate science researchers concerning human-driven climate change. Every credible science organization on earth (without a single exception) has publicly gone on record that climate change is real, is human driven, and it is a very serious threat to societies, economies, and ecosystems. The various “lists of scientists” that believe that climate change is a hoax (e.g., James Inhofe, Senator, OK) is itself a cruel hoax. When these lists are thoroughly examined they are primarily filled with have-bullshit-will-travel fossil fuel or political lobbyists who are not scientists, some scientists that are not familiar with climate science (and they even admit it), scientists that have “no idea” how they got on the list, and even deceased individuals.

There are only a few scientists who have conducted some research in climate science that are climate change deniers (primarily denying its potential severity), but these guys are on the payroll of fossil fuel industries. The most famous or infamous of these are: R. Lindzen (MIT), P. Michaels (U. Virginia), and R. Balling (AZ State). The climate research of these three (including the identification of serious errors and assumptions in their work) has been thoroughly discredited by their climate science peers (e.g., MacCracken, Mahlman, Santer, and Wigley, to just name a few leading climate scientists). Additionally, each of the three skeptics get $$$$$ from fossil fuels interests. Lindzen, who admits he distances himself from Michaels and Balling on technical grounds, also publicly admits to consulting for U.S. and Australia coal interests and OPEC oil interests for $2500. per day (and this was over a decade ago). Gelbspan (1998) in particular, clearly provides all the documentation and all the sordid details.

By the way, most of the “experts” and pseudo-scientists that deny anthropogenic climate change are funded from the IDENTICAL institutions, and are even the IDENTICAL individuals who went on record that tobacco, asbestos, or silica dust do NOT cause cancer, acid rain is a hoax, and HFC’s do not cause an ozone hole. Is the picture coming in loud and clear??

For the details of the incredible hundreds of millions of dollars that fossil fuel interests have spent and are spending on obscuring and denying the details of climate change science see at the library or search amazon.com for: Gelbspan (1998, 2005), D. Michaels (2008), Hoggan (2009), Oreskes and Conway (2010). These are just a small sample of what is available on this topic. For anyone staying awake at night worrying if the “Hockey Stick” is real, see Bradley (2011), but especially Mann (2012).

I suggest two RELIABLE web sites run by authentic climate scientists if you have any questions or desire additional information on climate change:
Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/)
NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
Also you can try our National Academies of Science and AAAS. A great and interactive site is run by our National Science Foundation (http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/index.html).

Some of what I have written above I posted in the Courier (31 March and 2 April) earlier this year in response to the 29 March editorial “Global Warming in Need of Attention”.

Tony Krzysik, Ph.D., Research Ecologist and Statistician

  - Page 1 -  Page 2

Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you
Find more about Weather in Prescott, AZ
Click for weather forecast

Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

 •  Browse the Yellow Pages

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved