David Meiser's Feb. 21 letter along with several others, including Frank Dubin's of Feb. 24, use a study published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters as the be-all and end-all that man-made global warming is "settled science."
The ERL study has seven categories of endorsement, with only the first category regarded as an irrefutable endorsement of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This is the only category that comes close to Meiser's and the others' erroneous statement: "that 97 percent of the authors endorsed the position that humans are causing climate change."
If all 97 percent of Meiser's "12,000 peer-reviewed papers" had repeated in slightly varying terms the category-one conclusion that humans are causing global warming, then his statement would be fair. However, only 65 papers (all of the category-one letters) mention that human activity is a dominant cause of climate change. If my math is correct, that amounts to slightly more than one in every 200, or 0.5 percent No scientific survey with a sample size of 65 could honestly be regarded as "settled science"
The ERL report reached the Machiavellian 97 percent number by adding up categories one through three to get from the troublesome 65 to a more accommodating 3,932, even though papers in categories two and three neither quantify nor minimize that "human endeavors" are a dominant influence in global warming. Excluded, except to use them as part of the 12,000 final tally, were any of the 8,261 papers labeled category four (neutral, having no clear position on AGW). Lastly, the report added categories five through seven as dissenters. Presto! Magically, the report touted the figure of 97 percent of 12,000.
Historically and philosophically, Meiser's claim that "man-made global warming" is "settled science" is indefensible. The contention that any science is settled is nothing but an agenda-driven political slogan to pull the wool over our eyes about the nature of science. Science is not an infallible authority to be blindly obeyed by society. Nor is science about consensus; opinion is about consensus.
Climate change has been real throughout history. But are humans causing imminent, unprecedented global climate change disasters? And should we prevent them by drastically slashing living standards and imposing government control over industries and people's lives? If you look at actual evidence- instead of bogus computer model forecasts- the answer is clearly no.
President Eisenhower warned: "In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy should itself become the captive of the scientific-technological elite."
Dave Wentzel
Warminster Township
| 
