Letters to the Editor
The figures used by Geraint Scott (Letters, Sept 11) to claim a scientific ''consensus'' about catastrophic human-caused global warming are utter nonsense. The ''thousands of scientific papers'' claimed by alarmists include thousands of taxpayer-funded studies of issues such as global warming impacts that assume the catastrophic thesis is correct.
OPINION: That's not the same as actual climate science papers that allegedly ''prove'' it. The alarmists include in their ''pro consensus'' numbers numerous papers that accept the basic theory, but dispute the extent to which humans are responsible. For example, see Climate Change and Misinformation by Legates, Soon, Briggs and Monckton. The percentages of actual climate science papers that support alarmism and those that dispute it are about 50/50. A list on Popular Technology.net has 1100-plus peer- reviewed papers supporting sceptic arguments against human- induced climate change alarm. That's many more than the ''24'' Mr Scott claims.
Most of the pro-alarmist papers involve computer modelling that's been hopelessly wrong over any significant time periods so far. Anyone who does their own research can see the alarmists have been shamelessly propagandising from the start.
PHILIP G HAYWARD
- The Dominion Post