Missed opportunities with a misplaced example - reply 2
Dear Editor, With reference to the Vostok ice core, Dr E means has made the following observation: “Temperature at Vostok fell by 4.5˚C without any assistance or amplification from falling CO2. [between 130000 and 112000 years ago]. The idea that variations in CO2 amplify orbital effects is basically disproven by this data…. all of the CO2 and CH4 variance in Vostok can be explained by dT causing dCO2 and dCH4 and not the other way around.” (Original bold and italics).
Readers are recommended to read Dr Mearn’s web page (http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-londons-statement-on-climate-change/) irrespective of their opinions about anthropogenic global warming and ask themselves how tenable are their views in the light of this important data. I note that much of the “wealth of theoretical prediction” referred to by M. Lack is based on computer modelling, the validity and accuracy of which keeping in mind the many alterations that have had to be made to make them fit the data, is highly questionable. I have asked before for proof that CO2/CH4 concentrations are the cause of temperature change and am still waiting for an answer.
Would Martin Siegert still be prepared to reaffirm his statement that: “The scientific evidence for human-induced climate change is irrefutable” and if so provide us with incontrovertible evidence? Would he explain why he continues to argue for a hypothesis which, as the Vostok data demonstrates, is false. M. Lack is correct that not all opinions are equally valid: only those which fit the facts are and they are not those held by the majority with their antecedent beliefs. From my perspective there are huge controversial issues around climate change, especially the nature of the genuine consensus and the way in which modern climate research has become inextricably entwined with Politics.
Stephen Foster