First, it reads very much as if you are a carbon sceptic. Now there is nothing wrong with carbon scepticism per se but a balanced article would attempt to see both sides of an argument and, hopefully, understand the science. Phrases like "carbon cultists" sound as if you're just trying to wind people up - hence the comment that what you're written includes some parts which appear to be flame bait.

Now to the points:

1)"One of the two diminishing populations, in Baffin Bay, is declining because the air is getting colder - not warmer"

This is predicted by climate models (and evidence) which show quite clearly that any climate change, in this case global warming, does not affect all areas equally and can lead to temperature variations both positive and negative in localised areas. For instance, deviation of the Gulf Stream for whatever reason (an unlikely possibility IMO but it does exist theoretically) could reduce temperatures in the UK whilst not massively affecting the overall temperature of Europe.

2)"Secondly, even NASA is reluctant to attribute a warmer Arctic to "Global Warming". It's a local, regional phenomenon"

This is just wrong, based on your own link. Specifically phrases in that link such as "Recent dramatic changes in the Arctic climate - melting sea ice, warmer ocean, green fields in place of icy wilderness, etc - might not all be directly related to global warming.". Notice how your statement bears no relation to this one. Or this "Morison adds that although the recently observed changes are more likely due to the variations in the current than directly to do with global warming, climate models do predict that a warmer world will have a stronger counter-clockwise circulation in the Arctic Ocean. This, he adds, means that the 1990s may have been a glimpse of the region's future.".

Essentially, there are multiple causes for region specific climate variations but identifying one does not automatically mean none of the others are having an effect, which you don't address in the slightest.

3)David Whitehouse - although a respected scientist - is still only one voice and his speciality is astrophysics not climate. It is interesting seing the response that New Scientist themselves give to his article here http://www.newstatesman.com/200801140011 including this "I’ll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average. ".

You seemingly give no credence to contrary views from experts in the field - which David Whitehouse is not btw. Essentially it reads as though you've read his article and simply trusted it without investigating further, or you've investigated further and then chosen to believe the article that already agrees with your beliefs. Either way, poor journalism and poor science I'm afraid.

Pete

In other words, when journalists are correcting false arguments, they should always quote additional misleading information for "balance". Journalists should not draw citations from outside the small number of "experts" who are acceptable as sources.

Here's another -

I was less than impressed by your article "Philip Pullman: Kill humans and ration heating". My grandmother died of tuberculosis in 1947. By 1949 such deaths were significant decline as the National Health Service provided care to those who previously could not afford it.

I guess you have no data for STD infection rates immediately post war compared to today. You are slapdash (?drunk?wired?) in you approach and the fact that you use the increase in life expectancy, that is principally down to improved health care and better safety measures, as an argument for deriding Philip Pullman is shabby in the extreme.

From the other things you write I suspect you were (a) not alive in the years immediately after WW2 and (b) have very little experience talking to people who were alive then about what it was like. To illustrate (b) it was common in the 40s/50s for people to have healthy teeth removed, so as to have the "superior" dentures fitted (it was sometimes a 21st birthday present from parents).

Before dismissing what Philip Pullman says I suggest you open your mind and get some facts into it. Your current sources make Wiki look gold standard and your poor journalistic standards reflect badly on The Register.

Regards,

John Winney

Sorry John, but if "superior dentures [were] sometimes a 21st birthday present from parents", then you had posh parents.

Pullman's assertion that the nation was healthier in the post-war years is clearly, demonstrably wrong. His argument, based on this assertion, that returning to the post-war rationing era is therefore desirable, is also wrong.

We're glad to be of service. ®

Page:

• ← Prev
• 1
• 2

Related stories

• Would you leave your child alone with a cabinet minister? (17 July 2009)
• Anti-science Greenies keep Africa poor, says boffin (8 September 2008)
• Oz TV advises CO2-emitting children to die early (3 June 2008)
• Wake me up when Global Warming's over (23 April 2008)
• Soot almost as bad as CO₂ for global warming (25 March 2008)
• Bag tax recycled into eco-PR slush (14 March 2008)
• Budget 2008 Darling budget fails to paint Brown government green (12 March 2008)
• Inventor promises bottle-o-wind car in a year. Again (14 February 2008)
• London Congestion Charge becomes CO₂ tax (12 February 2008)
• Scientists warn on climatic 'tipping points' (5 February 2008)
• Analysis US looks to old Herr Kohle for energy security (28 January 2008)
• Philip Pullman: Kill humans and ration heating (21 January 2008)
• Cloudy outlook for climate models (27 December 2007)
• Radiohead backs WW2-style austerity program (10 December 2007)
• Global warming not to blame for warmer North Pole? (15 November 2007)