Questioning scientist ‘Alliance’ legitimacy
By Letter to the Editor on November 23, 2019.
Re: “Why do some people refuse to read?,” Nov. 9 My children have always warned me about expressing my opinion in the op-ed column (opinion section) of the newspaper. They say I am opening myself up to trolls, haters and cancel culture which after several years has finally happened. On Nov. 9 I was the brunt of a very emotional and extreme personal attack saying I don’t read, am a climate denier, am not educated, am irrational, am devoid of facts, and got my information from Facebook. All untrue – so where do I start? In university I was a math and physics major while getting my degree. I have read numerous physics text books over my years, but more recently have been reading many climate change books by collections of physicists. They document the natural solar-induced climate cycle with exhaustive lists of scientific references. Sift through the search results for ‘climate change and the sun’ on Amazon Books and you will see the on-going debate regarding the human contribution to changes in climate is far from settled. Data/facts by these solar scientists (solar maximums and minimums, cosmic rays, solar isotopes, axial tilt, orbital shape, the Earth’s slow wobble, solar winds/bursts/spots, solar ultra-violet emissions, Ozone Response Factor, Ocean-Iron Feedback Loop) have been stated in textbooks for years, and can be looked up easily. Yes, solar scientists do exist! I have never posted on social media, but did join Facebook years ago to view family pictures. However, I do not go on very frequently as my children have moved on to Instagram. My less than 30 “friends” are close relatives who boast about family – not political activism. The internet is full of propaganda, haters, scammers and misinformation. I prefer reading my many books and avoid the internet as much as possible. The latest scam is the open letter signed by 11,000 climate scientists in the “Alliance of World Scientists.” It is really just a blog page (no members, no conferences, and no studies) by a guy in the Oregon University Forestry Department that anyone could click on and “agree” (with no vetting). The print out of so-called climate scientists was a complete joke – as many of these consensuses have been (grad students funding their education, biased research-funded scientists, non-climate scientists, non-scientists). NASA’s NOMA and the United Nations’ IPCC were embroiled in climate data altering scandals (check “Climate Gate”). They did not have squeaky clean climate backgrounds or motives. However if you check “solar maximums and minimums” on NASA today, you will see these cyclic warming and cooling periods are now mentioned and even numbered by NASA. I do agree with the 97% who believe in climate change. I also believe that cyclic solar-induced climate change is at least 97% of the causation. I really didn’t think the expression of hate was worth replying to until I saw, that same day, the 10 pages of brave soldier from Medicine Hat that died protecting my freedom of opinion. They may not have agreed with me, but died protecting my right to speak. Barb Taylor Medicine Hat 9-8
