No headline

The back-and-forth with Jack DeBaun regarding the climate is a bit filled with hot air when any of us pretend to have the final answer. There are, though, important aspects to the discussion that seem important to be meaningful. One is the need to be honest and accurate. Another is to know good science when you see it. Unfortunately, a recent article published in “Nature”, as well as the recently released U.S. National Climate Assesment, do not comfort anyone.

After the University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University, three well-regarded institutions, had the results of a study, which had been “peer reviewed,” published in “Nature”, claiming ocean warming evidence, it was discovered a math error was made which caused the authors to admit their error and to withdraw the report. It makes you wonder how reliable are these people, and their “peers.” Mathematics is a fundamental foundation of science.

The recently released U.S. National Climate Assessment did not report the recent decline in hurricanes and its claim about the degree of economic damage is based on a temperature increase two times the values reported elsewhere in the report. One of the strengths of scientific fact is its consistency. The assessment could not even be consistent with its reporting. Again, questionable reliability.

Hard science does not stand on a consensus opinion. It stands on facts which can be tested, measured and reproduced.

JEREMY CONLIN

Cocolalla