Art Betke makes many claims in his recent letter supposedly debunking 1000s of the world's climate experts. However, a cursory review of his letter reveals mistakes that brings the academic quality of this work to below what I would expect in a first-year university paper. Due to space limitations, I will only be able to point out ne of the many major flaws.
The most egregious misrepresentation in Betke's letter is that "Human emissions only account for three per cent of CO2, far less than just the normal variations in natural emissions." It is true that human CO2 emissions are comparatively small, but what Betke fails to grasp is that the three percent of CO2 that constitute anthropogenic emissions is additional to what can be absorbed by natural systems. It is irrelevant that CO2 only lasts for ten years, as a molecule of anthropogenic carbon dioxide prevents a tree from absorbing a natural CO2 molecule. The overall effect of higher CO2 levels lasts for centuries.
Forests, oceans and other natural systems can only absorb so much carbon dioxide. Like increasing the water flow from the tap into a sink, if the rate of flow in is greater than the drain capacity, even a five-year old realizes that the sink will overflow. The same can be said of adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but instead of water spilling on the floor, global temperature increases.
I would invite Mr. Betke, to give a coherent theory explaining how global temperatures are increasing while there has been no increase in solar output since the 1960s and greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, how the observed global temperature could be anything other than the "consensus position"? If this could be answered, Mr. Betke should start packing his bags to receive his Nobel prize.
Thomas Cheney
Prince George
