Letter to the Editor: In Response to “Denying climate change is hurting any chance America has at reversing the impact”

In Letters to the Editor, Opinion
A photo of Langsdorf hall

In response to: “Denying climate change is hurting any chance America has at reversing the impact” Published on Sept. 12

It is simply incorrect to link hurricanes with global warming.

Madhav Khandekar, who has a doctorate in meteorology from Florida State University and is a former Environment Canada research scientist said “the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2012 that a relationship between global warming and hurricanes has not been demonstrated. In their September 2013 assessment report, they had ‘low confidence’ that damaging increases will occur in tropical cyclones (hurricanes are a type of tropical cyclone) and drought due to global warming.”

In 2013 the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change said that “in no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.”

“When the earth was cooling between 1945 and 1977, there were as many extreme weather events as there are now. The link between global warming and extreme weather is more perception than reality,” Khandekar said.

Written by, Tom Harris, B.A. Engineering, M.A. Engineering (Thermofluids Engineering.)

If you liked this story, sign up for our weekly newsletter with our top stories of the week.

You may also read!

A recycling center for used batteries located in the Titan Student Union.

Cal State Fullerton collects used batteries for recycling

Cal State Fullerton has a system for the collection of batteries, which are processed and then taken to a

Read More...

How to get your snow during this Californian winter break

Here in Southern California, winter weather mostly consists of gloomy clouds and the occasional rain shower, but with a

Read More...
Maricsa Segundo holds her daughter, Caroline, at the beach

CSUF student comes out of postpartum depression stronger

Maricsa Secundo, a MAC makeup artist and biology major at Cal State Fullerton, was thrilled to finally find out

Read More...

28 commentsOn Letter to the Editor: In Response to “Denying climate change is hurting any chance America has at reversing the impact”

  • In their efforts to knock down the increasing numbers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming skeptics, those pushing the warmist agenda, felt they had to resort to name-calling and therefore decided to imply the worst kind of person they could think of, the “holocaust denier”. So, they hatched the idea that if you were going to sink to name-calling, then you had to insinuate the worst, hit hard, and hit often.
    This brings up the point as to who is denying climate? How would one deny climate? If we wanted to use that foolish term, wouldn’t it be better applied to those who think the climate remains or should remain constant; those who somehow believe that an invisible, odorless, tasteless trace gas can be used to control global temperatures; those who imply they are referring to “carbon” such as soot, smog, graphite, etc. (something they deem dirty) when they are really planning to tax the air (carbon dioxide) we exhale; those who demand that anyone who will not accept their baseless and unscientific claims be jailed or even killed; and so forth? These people are definitely not true scientists or even knowledgeable of basic science.
    Who are the real climate deniers?

  • They are such a desperate lot.

  • Tom Harris once again endorses the Heartland Institute’s “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” without disclosing his close association with the Heartland Institute.

    The definition of shill:
    Shill – ?shil
    noun
    1) A shill is a person who publicly gives credibility to a person or organization without
    disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
    2) An accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine
    customer to entice or encourage others.
    3) A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they
    themselves have an interest.

    Tom Harris publicly endorses the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC in these comments without disclosing, he is “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute. Mr. Harris also fails to disclose Dr. Khandekar is a Heartland Institute associate who was paid by the Heartland Institute to be a co-author the NIPCC report.

    The climate science of the IPCC: “A changing climate leads to changes in extreme weather and climate events” – “There is evidence that anthropogenic influences, including increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, have changed these extremes.”

    Versus

    The cherry-picked nonsense of the NIPCC: “…the claim that global warming will lead to more extremes of climate and weather,including of temperature itself, seems theoretically unsound”

  • Instead of addressing Ilana Lagraff’s actual arguments, Dale creates a straw-man arguments to knock down.
    1) Ilana Lagraff never compared climate science skeptics to holocaust deniers.
    2)Ilana Lagraff never implied carbon dioxide was to “soot, smog, graphite, etc. (something they deem dirty)” nor did Ilana Lagraff promote a tax on carbon dioxide.
    3)No one has ever demanded climate skeptics be killed.
    Dale’s entire diatribe is one fallacious argument after another.

  • Tom Harris’s letter is deeply misleading.

    As pointed out by @cunudiun:disqus, Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar quote the IPCC out of context. Yes, the IPCC said there’s no evidence of an increase in hurricane frequency. But they didn’t say that about hurricane intensity. In fact, they clearly said hurricanes are getting stronger:

    According to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, “Nonetheless, clear evidence exists for increases in category 4 and 5 storms globally since 1970 along with increases in the PDI due to increases in intensity and duration of storms.”

  • Tom Harris is another paid shill for the fossil fuel boys that does their bidding to prey upon the more ignorant among us in order to extend their profits and have “we the people” pay for all the external damages and costs of their products.

  • “Tom Harris is another paid shill for the fossil fuel boys”

    He most certainly is! …and he’s been prostituting himself for quite a while now. If the Daily Titan allows his paid disinformation to appear here in the guise of “opinion” without disclosing his financial connexions to the companies he’s writing about, aren’t they party to the fraud?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7018b10424b8dfd194c2becfc0682a316e997fa30f4a0ddf2242b25c7dbe5f9.jpg

  • The way facts are twisted in this article issue sad to see. The science of associating global warming to stronger hurricanes is relatively young, and therefore the confidence the IPCC has about its findings is not ‘highly likely’ or ‘very likely’ yet. But a classification of ‘low confidence’ does not indicate it is not likely as this article implies. It simply means work is on-going.

    We know human-caused global warming from fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions causes three things, of which the IPCC qualifies as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ likely:

    – accelerating sea level rise

    – warmer oceans

    – more water vapor in the air (warmer air holds more water vapor)

    Those three factors are the things that make hurricanes stronger, drop more water, and make storm surge worse. See how this article twists the careful statements of the IPCC into making it sound like there is no problem at all? This is called ‘manipulation of readers’, and is a good example of a shill of the fossil fuel industry at work, in the 30 year effort to defraud the public about the dangers of climate change from fossil fuels.

    For a complete expose, watch or read Merchants of Doubt.

    For now, give this author a big thumbs down.

  • Thanks to better infrastructure, safer buildings, modern communications, satellite technology, all powered mostly by fossil fuels, there has been an incredible reduction in deaths from extreme weather events over the last century. A storm that used to kill thousands now only kills a dozen. By continuing to use safe, dense, cheap and portable energy from fossil fuels, man can build even more wealth, meaning safer buildings, better emergency responses, and less deaths. Countries with little wealth and energy suffer much more from the naturally dangerous climate.

  • “By continuing to use safe, dense, cheap and portable energy from fossil fuels, ” mankind can continue to undermine the infrastructure and agriculture upon which this civilization depends. There, fixed it for you.

  • I’m confused. If you refer to the magnificent infrastructure that has been built with the energy from fossil fuels and the incredible agricultural productivity enabled by fossil fuel energy, then I must agree. Before fossil fuel energy, infrastructure consisted of crude buildings, roads and structures, while agriculture was the main occupation of most of humanity, scratching and clawing at the earth to yield near-starvation food levels and suffering from regular drought, famine and disease.

  • The leaders of the global warming movement have a lot to answer for, aside from a steady stream of incorrect models and predictions of doom.

    John Holdren, advisor to President Obama for Science and Technology, in his 1977 book (paraphrased for brevity): Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs in drinking water or food. Single mothers and teen mothers should have have their babies taken away from them and given to others. A transnational ‘Planetary Regime’ should assume control of the global economy using an armed police force.

    Prince Philip: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation… We need to cull the surplus population.”

    Ingrid Newkirk of PETA: “Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

    Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

  • What a stupid (and wrong) comment.

  • Just looking at your #3, I can confidently know that YOU ARE A LIAR.

  • Sparafucile’s has never lacked confidence when writing nonsense.

    Ilana Lagraff’s letter over a month ago did not demand climate skeptics be killed. No one in these comments demanded climate skeptics be killed.

    Sparfucile shares Dale’s delusion.

  • I know, I know … facts are troubling little details for you.

    So let’s review, even though you seem impervious to the.

    Fact #1: You wrote “No one has ever demanded climate science skeptics be killed.”

    See that little phrase — “No one”? You didn’t write “Ilana Lagraff”. You wrote “No one”.

    Fact #2: You’re arguing against a statement I never made. I never made any reference to Lagraff’s letter.

    So, Dave, PoS, don’t you get embarrassed, even a little, when you get caught offering such patent absurdity?

  • Today Sparafucile claims his false accusation is not related to Ilana Lagraff’s letter. However, a month ago, I wrote, “Instead of addressing Ilana Lagraff’s actual arguments, Dale creates a straw-man arguments to knock down” and listed three.

    Last month Dale wrote that “warmists” demanded climate science skeptics be killed. I pointed out no one made such a demand.

    Yesterday, Sparafucile calls me a lier for pointing-out Dale’s fallacious argument. Sparafucile’s comments are as rational as they are timely.

  • Sparafucile is not just a liar, he is a primo liar and stupid too.

  • Sparafcile is an idiot.

  • The1TruthSpeaker

    Anybody can google Tom Harris and in five minutes uncover the fact that he is paid to promote oil industry interests. Just like when he worked for Philip-Morris and promoted the idea that cigarettes are healthy.

Comments are closed.

Mobile Sliding Menu