I’m disappointed to see 18 BYU professors jumping into the political fray over “global warming,” nay, “climate change,” the latest terminology since warming hasn’t occurred in over a decade now. They claim that their position is not political, but everything about this topic is political, especially their submission of an “open letter” to Utah’s legislators.
Of the 18 signers of the letter, only one, Summer Rupper (Ph.D., 2007), has any association with a climate science (paleoclimatology). The others are certainly Ph.D.s, but in fields that include geology, volcanology, microbiology and even statistics. I’m certain they are sincere in their concerns, but it doesn’t qualify them to determine who is relevant to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change.
They conveniently left out the name of the scientist testifying as to the inconclusive science and political pronouncements of the global warming alarmists, namely the U.N.’s IPCC. He is Dr.
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. in meteorology (1981), NASA senior scientist of climate studies and research scientist at the University of Alabama. In trying to marginalize Dr. Spencer they blithely quote a completely discredited number of “well over 90 percent” of climate scientists agreeing with their “consensus.”
The signers don’t even represent 90 percent of science professors at BYU.
As Michael Crichton once said to students at Cal Tech, “Consensus is not science, and science is not consensus.” I’m truly concerned about the lack of perspective and scientific understanding that BYU students will be receiving from these political activists.
Chris Stern
American Fork
Feeds 
"fields that include geology, volcanology, microbiology and even statistics... doesn’t qualify them to determine who is relevant to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change."
LOL...you need to stay in college for a while and take more classes.
Chris:
You need to discriminate between short and long-term phenomena. Your conclusion that the planet hasn't warmed is akin to suggesting that winter is not coming because we have had nice weather the last week or so. Your argument means nothing. Rather, since 1959, the correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature is 0.9 with a positive slope.
You also mischaracterize the signers of the letter. Rupper is not the only one involved in climate change research. As a signer of the letter, I have been involved is past climate change research for about 15 years. Similar expertise is held by other signers.
Writing a letter urging legislators to carefully consider mainstream science is not partisan. It is a request that public policy be informed by the best available information. We did not name Roy Spencer because the legislative committee that invited him knew full well who we were referring to. You err when you imply there is something amiss when an effort was made not to personalize the issue. But since you raise his name, he pronouncements of human impact on the climate is a fringe position.
I also do not know how you confound the >90% figure. This is a reference to an American Geophysical Union survey of **publishing climatologists** (97.4% actually) and has nothing to do with BYU faculty.
Finally, your whole argument of partisanship on our part collapses in a heap of self-contradiction when you refer to mainstream climate scientists as “global warming alarmists.” Crichton (who himself was no scientist) is correct that consensus does not equal truth. But both you and the legislature would be well advised to listen carefully to the 97.4% of publishing practitioners.
Point 1: Many of those Ph.D's are probably quite connected with climate science.
Chris obviously doesn't understand the collaborative nature of science. Climate science isn't a field independent of all others where only someone's who's certifications say, "Climate Scientist" can have any input on the debate.
Specifically, since my major was singled out as being irrelevant to the climate debate, I will address statistics. Chris does not understand that Climate Science relies on both time series analysis and spatial analysis, both statistical fields. Chris should well note, that scientists will often consult with statisticians to ensure the reliabilities of models created and inferences that they are trying to make. I'm sure persons from other disciplines cited as uninvolved could make similar arguments for the relevancy of their fields.
Point 2: It is true that the debate is still open.
I will make the point, having recently attended a lecture by a statistics professor who is doing climate research. There is a lot of uncertainty associated with climate predictions and there is definitely not a consensus on a future of warming caused by humans.
So yeah, the point is valid that our professors seemed to have acted in a way that doesn't make very much scientific sense, but it's not a question of credentials.
Our poor children!
Chris, If you would have researched some of these professors recent projects, beyond simply their doctorate degree, you may have realized that many of their current or past research has been focused on problems influenced by paleo or current climate conditions.
This post is extremely disappointing. it is this exact type of prideful ignorance, oversimplifications, and bad bad science and reasoning that is killing this planet. God bless our children.
Seriously?
I mean, seriously? This is serious?
This ed piece is absurd!
Which part is "absurd"?
The fact the earth hasn't warmed in over 10 years? (You can look it up)
The fact that these letter signers are, for the most part, NOT climate scientists?
The fact they don't represent 90% of the professors?
The fact that Dr. Roy Spencer is an accomplished CLIMATE scientist?
I guess it's easier to be flippantly dismissive when the facts don't match your preconceived beliefs. Your argument in response is - to be generous - less than persuasive.
Look at Utah's atmospheric science department and see the percentage of meteorologists who agree with global warming. There's a reason that the legislature had to go five miles to find someone arguing that global warming is a serious issue and 2,000 miles to find someone against it. Oh, and that 10 year thing, the five year average has increased over the last 10 years. If you had knowledge in the field you would know that 1998 (warmest year on record) had a particularly strong El Nino and El Nino years tend to be warmer than usual. Also, if you look at the data, you will see that 1999 1997 1996 and 2000 are all colder than any of the years from 2001-2008. There's a difference between weather and climate. The climate is warming, but that doesn't mean that every year will be warmer than the last, thanks to variations in weather patterns (like an El Nino year for example). So...I guess it's easier to be flippantly dismissive when the facts don't match your preconceived beliefs.
Which part is absurd?
Your implication that you have more credibility than earth scientists who are familiar with the current peer-reviewed research is absurd.
Your apparent naivety about the extent of knowledge of modern earth scientists is absurd.
Your willingness to ignore overwhelming data that runs counter your political dogma is absurd. Your claim that the earth has not warmed recently when you present no data or citation is absurd (try looking up "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections" in Science, 2007, Vol. 316. no. 5825, p. 709).
Your point that the letter writers don't represent 90% of BYU professors, when there is no data to indicate one way or the other, is so irrelevant that it is absurd.
Your statement that the BYU professors are political activists, when you know nothing about them, their associations, ideologies or personalities is absurd.
You whole tactic of ignoring overwhelming EVIDENCE by attacking the idea of consensus is very very absurd.
Does that help?
Try reading Michael Mann's 1998 article in the Peer reviewed journal "Nature" (Michael E. Mann, Jonathan D. Woodruff, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Zhihua Zhang Nature 460, 880-883 (13 August 2009)). You can also reference the over peer reviewed articles since that time that referenced that paper. Then you will be able to cite actual facts, instead of repeating what you heard on Rush, Glenn Beck or Hannity.