In the News Now: 38 Climate Researchers Respond to a Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece
Scripps climate researcher Richard Somerville was among 38 of the world’s most prominent climate scientists who signed a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal today rebutting a Jan. 27 op-ed entitled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”
“When the Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous op-ed, opposing the central findings of modern climate science, and repeating familiar falsehoods, signed by 16 people with little or no credibility in the field, then a group of mainstream climate scientists decided we simply had to set the record straight,” Somerville said.
Coverage of the letter from the New York Times here, the Guardian (U.K.) here, BoingBoing here, Huffington Post here, and ThinkProgress here
Further coverage on the response to the letter came from the New York Times, The Daily Climate and Forbes.
The text of the letter follows:
|
– Robert Monroe
5 Responses to In the News Now: 38 Climate Researchers Respond to a Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece
Photo of the Week
View more »
Got a photo?
Submit your photos of the Scripps campus or Scripps research. We'll select our favorites and post them on explorations now home page
Twitter
- Kids, want a Scripps beach towel free? All you need is curiosity about nature and one good question: http://t.co/iWF2Czi0 21 hours ago
- If you can't join us at Daniel Pauly's "Jellyfish Burgers" lecture tonight, follow live tweets from @MiriamGoldste #PaulySIO 7pm PST 2012/05/09
Most Read
- In the News Now: Plastic Trash Altering Ocean Habitats, Scripps Study Shows413 views
- Around the Pier: Inaugural Roger Revelle Chair En Route to Scripps355 views
- Research Highlight: Housing Boom: 100-fold Increase in Plastic Trash ‘Homes’ Alters Marine Insect’s Habitat343 views
- Around the Pier: Strangers on a Train Create an Educational Opportunity294 views
- Voyager: New Swag Up For Grabs!267 views
Scripps Blogoshpere







What bothers me is the way that this letter is written. The wording insists that if you are not a scientist or expert in what you are talking about, you should just shut up. No Mr. Somerville, I strongly believe that everybody is free and has the right to express their opinion even if it is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Nobody has the right to stop them or try to put them down. This is where dictatorship starts.
In this letter, I wasn’t able to find any reason for global warming other than human. Have you ever been able to figure out why all those politicians who support this idea and keep fighting for it move around using several SUVs? The vehicle that use of one of them by a regular family is a big crime. These changes have happened before and will happen again, with or without human so be kind to each other. Nobody is going to live forever.
P. S. Galileo was the only one with the right idea against not 97%, but 100%. Who knows what is next.
“The interpretation of the observational science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm. All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts — if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?” Dr. Michael Kelly of Cambridge, England.
The observational science at SIO is the Scripps Pier data, which along with that of other California tide stations, has shown a decline in average sea level over the past decade compared to the decade of the 1990s.
Dr. Peter Gleick, one of the 38 who signed with Dr. Somerville, has insisted that the start of the 21st Century would bring unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise to the California coast.
Yet the low areas of South Mission Beach, which were often threatened with flooding during the 1990s, now find flooding a rare event. And the Marine Room restaurant near SIO, built in 1941 at sea level, still remains open for business. Dr. Kelly’s point is a powerful one. Some climate scientists have exaggerated to provoke alarm. And locally, scientists like Dr. Gleick have ignored the sea level data when it conflicts with the alarming forecasts from computer models.
No, jumbella, saying that there is evidence that something could happen is not the same as disputing the conclusions of 97% of the scientific community. If 97% of economists said that this “could NOT drive decades of economic growth” and then these folks made a statement to the effect that all of those economists are wrong and we should listen to them instead, you would have an analogous situation.
The letter begins with a statement that dentist are unqualified for some medical procedures. It concludes with an implication that climate scientists are qualified in the field of economic prediction. I wouldn’t endorse that letter no matter where I stood on the global warming issue.
Of course, change would mean that all those FAT CATS in D.C. would have to give up their handsome profits from the oil industry and chemical industry.
I don’t think that’s going to happen as fast as we’d all like it to happen. The Tea Party folks are into growing the economy, not profiting from big oil on wall street.