Ted Spickler – 1/3/07

This page was last updated on January 8, 2007.

Global warming threat is real; Ted Spickler; Beaver County Times; January 3, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In responding to the Dec. 29 letter ‘Don’t buy warming scam’ I understand skepticism over threats of global warming when political interests could be pushing hidden agendas using hype, smoke and mirrors.”

[RWC] Here Mr. Spickler asserts he can “understand skepticism,” but later in the letter he claims “[s]keptics distract us.”

Regarding “political interests could be pushing hidden agendas using hype, smoke and mirrors,” I wonder why Mr. Spickler didn’t mention Al Gore and his fellow travelers by name.

“I checked directly with the research literature published by genuine scientists who make the measurements (and have reputations to protect) and was amazed at the ‘open and shut’ case existing for global warming being caused by humans everywhere burning fossil fuels.”

[RWC] Note Mr. Spickler provided no citations for “the research literature published by genuine scientists” he “checked directly.” As a result, we have no way to verify “genuine scientists” published the reports.

Also, what expertise does Mr. Spickler have to evaluate “the research literature” he allegedly read? For example, as an engineer, I would not be qualified to pass judgment on botany research.

When someone talks about “the ‘open and shut’ case existing for global warming being caused by humans,” you can pretty much assume he’s been drinking the manmade global warming Kool-Aid.

Here’s a Senate press release identifying scientists who don’t believe manmade global warming is an “‘open and shut’ case.”

“Here is the evidence that letter writer Robin Cox requested.”

[RWC] Mr. Spickler’s idea of “evidence” differs quite a bit from mine. His “evidence” is nothing more than stating humans put CO₂ into the atmosphere. You’ll see what I mean below.

“Carbon dioxide is known to cause global warming through the greenhouse effect. Scientists measure the increase of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere every year - they track these numbers.

“Other scientists account for the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere every year from the burning of fossil fuels.

“This second number is larger than the first, indicating that humans on the planet are, in the words of professional scientists, ‘virtually certain’ to be causing global warming (the difference between the two numbers is an absorption effect from plants and the ocean).”

[RWC] This is Mr. Spickler’s “evidence?”

“This second number is larger than the first?” This makes no sense. Two paragraphs back, Mr. Spickler wrote, “[s]cientists measure the increase of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.” I assume this means total CO₂. In the next paragraph, Mr. Spickler wrote, “[o]ther scientists account for the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere every year from the burning of fossil fuels.” I assume this means the portion of total CO₂ produced “from the burning of fossil fuels.” The amount of CO₂ added “from the burning of fossil fuels” can’t exceed total CO₂ added.

Earlier Mr. Spickler referred to “genuine scientists” and now he refers to “professional scientists.” This is Mr. Spickler’s way of trying to imply scientists who don’t agree with his scientists aren’t “genuine” or “professional.” Note Mr. Spickler doesn’t address the issue that “genuine” and professional” scientists 30 years ago told us pollution caused global cooling and predicted an “ice age.”

Mr. Spickler also didn’t address the issue that “genuine” and “professional” scientists last year told us the 2005 hurricanes were the result of global warming, despite the fact hurricane experts showed that assertion to be false. Remember how these guys told us the 2006 hurricane season would be worse than 2005 because of global warming, but instead the 2006 season was far less severe than 2005?

Why didn’t Mr. Spickler mention methane? I don’t encourage using editorials as data sources, but a recent New York Times editorial quoted the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (“Livestock’s Long Shadow”) as asserting, “livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effect, more than transportation’s contribution. The culprits are methane — the natural result of bovine digestion — and the nitrogen emitted by manure.”¹

If livestock are a bigger alleged contributor to global warming than our use of fossil fuels for transportation, why aren’t Mr. Spickler and his fellow manmade global warming supporters focusing on that source? Hint: It has to do with stalling the economies of western industrialized countries – and the U.S. specifically – in favor of Third World countries. Why else did the Kyoto Protocol specifically exclude countries like India and Red China?

“Skeptics distract us by describing past episodes of global warming while ignoring current measurements. Ancient warming and cooling episodes are explained without the need for artificial entry of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

[RWC] “Skeptics distract us?” Translation: Non-supporters need to shut up.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A major contributor to good science is peer review and an open discussion of data, facts, and theory. If the case supporting alleged manmade global warming is “open and shut” as Mr. Spickler asserts, how could skeptics possibly be a distraction? Indeed, during my career I was concerned when all members of my teams “were on the same page.” In some cases, I took the “Devil’s advocate” role so proponents of an approach had to prove their position.

Mr. Spickler writes that skeptics are “ignoring current measurements.” It’s an attempt to marginalize non-supporters and is not true. It’s just that not all scientists interpret the data the same way as Mr. Spickler’s scientists.

Mr. Spickler writes that “[a]ncient warming and cooling episodes are explained without the need for artificial entry of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” yet he appears to ignore the possibility normal climate fluctuations are the primary driver of today’s global warming.

Also note Mr. Spickler’s use of “ancient.” As noted in my letter, examples of cooling and warming periods don’t fall into the “ancient” category unless you consider the late 1^st millennia AD through the 2^nd millennia to be ancient. Remember, we went through short cooling and warming periods in the 20^th century alone. Mr. Spickler would like us to believe examples of cooling and warming periods happened so long ago they aren’t relevant.

If the case is so solid, why did U.S. Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) send a letter cautioning ExxonMobil to stop funding manmade global warming “deniers?”

If the case is so solid, why is everything considered to be evidence of manmade global warming? When it’s warmer than usual, that’s evidence. When it’s cooler than normal, that’s evidence. When the temperature is the same, that’s evidence.

If the case is so solid, why do supporters feel the need to engage in name-calling? For example, you are a “legitimate” scientist only if you support the manmade global warming position. Non-supporters and skeptics are “deniers.”

“However, what is happening today is a different story. Remember the taming of the early West when train passengers fired randomly for fun on herds of wild buffalo ultimately decimating those herds to extinction?”

[RWC] Mr. Spickler writes that “what is happening today is a different story” yet provides no evidence. Above, Mr. Spickler said manmade global warming skeptics are “ignoring current measurements,” yet – as noted above – he appears to ignore the possibility any global warming is primarily of non-human origin.

“Today, we look back and criticize such thoughtless behavior, but at the time I can imagine those shooters confidently predicting that mere humans could not possibly bring such herds to extinction. But they did.”

[RWC] I guess I’m dense. First, though herds were decimated, buffalo were not hunted “to extinction.” Second, I don’t see how the buffalo and manmade global warming issues are analogous. For you wackos out there, the preceding is not intended to minimize the mass slaughter of the buffalo. I’m just pointing out the flaws in Mr. Spickler’s sentence.

Mr. Spickler implies people skeptical of today’s claims of manmade global warming don’t believe man’s behavior could cause global warming or less global cooling. Again, that’s an attempt to marginalize non-supporters. I’m absolutely positive man can affect the climate. I’m just skeptical that’s the case today given what I know and the behavior of most manmade global warming supporters.

“We are repeating a similar behavior today. What will future generations think of us looking backward in time?”

[RWC] This is an example of the “emotion and hysteria” comment I made in my letter.

1. Meat and the Planet; Editorial; The New York Times; December 27, 2006.