Neil Godbout's contention (editorial, May 15) that there are two irrefutable facts (global temperatures are increasing, burning fossil fuels is the prime reason) is wrong.
We are much cooler than 10,000 years ago so it could be said that we're cooling. However, we're warmer than 300 years ago so we're warming. Both are correct but for the past 15 years global mean temperatures show stasis, so both are wrong. It all depends what starting point you use.
Is burning fossil fuels causing dangerous global warming? Not according to the evidence which is all on the side of the skeptics. When a scientist develops a theory, the practice is to release the data and methodology so other scientists can review it, try to duplicate the results and either confirm the conclusion or disprove it. Many alarmists try to avoid this practice. Michael Mann refused to release data for his "hockey stick" graph and for good reason - when it was ferreted out it was found to be fraudulent. Phil Jones came right out and said, "Why should I give it to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" That's exactly why it's called peer review.
Those who take the trouble to research the evidence always end up on the skeptic side. Two years ago, leading German environmentalist and global warming alarmist Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, while working as an expert reviewer of the IPCC report on renewable energy, discovered numerous errors. When he brought them to the attention of the IPCC, he was brushed off. This concerned him enough to dig into the IPCC report and he was horrified by what he found. Examining the evidence turned him to a skeptic viewpoint and along with Dr. Sebastian Lning he authored a book, "Die kalte Sonne" (not yet available in English) exposing the scam.
The claim that global warming is responsible for the pine beetle epidemic is ludicrous. Pine forests extend way down south where it is much, much warmer than here. If cold was the only thing keeping the beetles at bay, why didn't they wipe out the southern pine forests eons ago? You don't need to be a scientist to figure that one out, just use a little logic.
When claiming science as the basis for your view, you might want to make a reasonable effort to ensure the science actually supports it.
Art Betke
Prince George
