This is in response to a guest column on climate change written by Stuart Liebowitz and published in The News-Review on Jan. 30.
I can really appreciate Mr. Liebowitz’s heart and sincerity. Even though I believe he is very sincere, people can also be sincerely wrong. I agree with him that in the past four years we have experienced some drier-than-normal summers. However, look at the extreme lower temperatures in the Midwest and East this year.
The bottom line is, I predict that God controls the weather and Mother Nature works for the rest of mankind. One thing for sure, Mr. Liebowitz bases his predictions on predictions, not facts.
I also believe a lot of forest fires could have been handled much more efficiently if our forests were being managed properly. Unfortunately, in the world of extreme environmental theology that probably is wishful thinking.
Science is a process leading to ever-greater certainty, implying that what is accepted as true today will likely not be accepted as true tomorrow. Albert Einstein famously said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”
The most frequently cited source for a “consensus of scientists” is a 2004 essay by socialist historian Naomi Oreskes. Although not a scientist, she said that 75 percent of the of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's view that human activities were responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years.
The essay appeared in a NASA report, but the essay was not peer-reviewed. It was simply an opinion essay, which became the basis of a book. The editors didn’t bother to ask to see her database. Al Gore repeated her claims in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Oreskes’ methodology was flawed by assumption.