To the Editor:
Letter writer John Fehlauer should be skeptical of his choice of experts. NOAA & NASA issued a joint press release saying that 2014 was the warmest on record. It was not.
Both agencies ignored satellite measurements, the most comprehensive set of global temperatures ever compiled, which do not support that claim. These agencies are “cherry picking” temperatures and misleading the public.
NASA then stated they were only 38 percent sure this was true. The change in temperature for 2014 is less than the range of error in the instrumentation.
The 18 year “pause” in global warming has been verified by satellite data from two respected sources: the University of Alabama Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems in California. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at Marshall Space Flight Center, said there is “abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today.”
Why is this important? Because human-sourced CO2 emissions didn’t cause those temperature rises. Even with significantly increasing CO2 emissions today, temperature isn’t rising as a result.
The Friends of Science Society in Calgary has concluded “the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2).”
It’s the same for sea level change. Yes it’s rising, since the Little Ice Age, by about 1.2 millimeters/year through 1990. It increased to 3.2 mm/year the early part of this new century. That rate has diminished by 34 percent in the last ten years.
CO2 has agricultural growth benefits: the latest benefits are from enhanced earthworm presence leading to a 25 percent increase in crop yield (van Groengen; Scientific Reports, 4: 10.1038).
Alex Epstein’s book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” is about morality, about right and wrong. What will promote human life? The book is not about fossil fuels; it’s the moral case for using cheap, plentiful, reliable energy to amplify our abilities to make the world a better place – a better place for human beings.
Bjorn Lomborg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist” is of a similar vein.
I’d be happy if Fehlauer would argue his position “based on facts.”