Has 1984 Finally Arrived?
This Letter to the Editor, written by CO2 Coalition Member Euan Mearns, was published in The Press and Journal, November 16, 2023:
Sir, Mike Hannan has referred to my view on climate change as Trumpian, and he calls into question my competence (letters 8th Nov).
I have a BSc in geology (hons) and PhD in isotope geochemistry and read physics for 1 year at university under R. V. Jones. I was awarded a merit. Much of the evidence for historic climate change comes from stable isotope data and cosmogenic isotope data from ice cores and fossil wood. I consider myself to be well qualified to analyse and provide commentary on these vital data sets. I am now retired, but my last employment was at ETH Zurich, regarded as Europe’s top university.
Mr Hannan accepts the 95% consensus of experts. This is normally cited as 97% consensus based on a paper published by John Cook et al in 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”. I wonder if Mr Hannan has read it?
The statistic is based on an analysis of abstracts from 11,944 papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011. Abstracts were scanned for those authors who expressed an opinion on the cause of climate change. 66.4% of abstracts did not express a view and therefore the opinion of those scientists were excluded from the survey. 32.6% of abstracts endorsed the view that anthropogenic global warming was real while 0.7% rejected it. The trouble, is that universities and research institutions working on climate issues tend to only employ individuals who endorse the official line (see final paragraph of this letter) and so this statistic is heavily biased and has little validity. While Mr Hannan says he is content to simply accept the consensus view, I do not, and I am widely read on this topic, especially on climate history. I have 250 colleagues and associates, all experienced and reputable scientists, who broadly share views that are aligned with my own.
Furthermore, Cook, et al simply record those individuals who endorse the fact that anthropogenic CO2 leads to a warming atmosphere. If I was asked that question, I would also respond in the affirmative. Hence, Mr Hannan is quite mistaken to suggest that I belong to a Trumpian minority. What is accepted as fact among my 250 friends is that the observed warming has 3 components to it: 1) greenhouse gas forced warming, 2) natural climatic warming (we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age) and 3) urban heat islands affecting thermometer readings. The climate alarm community (the IPCC etc) apportion all observed warming to manmade greenhouse gasses and simply ignore points 2 and 3. The moment you allocate a significant portion of observed warming to points 2 and 3 – perhaps 50% or more, the climate emergency disappears.
Mr Hannan goes on to say “generally severe weather is escalating”. A claim like this needs to be backed up by evidence. The main source of data on severe weather comes from the number of hurricanes making landfall in the USA. This number is actually flat to showing a small decline since 1851!
Mr Hannan opens his letter with the following quite chilling statement. “Claimed certainty on climate change to the public is very important”. This seems to be taken from some handbook on “Scaremongering and thought control”. Only 39 years late, it seems like 1984 has finally arrived.
Dr Euan Mearns
Aberdeen