Letter: Use of peer-reviewed science needed in climate discussions

One resident believes peer-reviewed science a necessity in climate change discussions

Re: Climate change and the plea for sanity (Letters, Dec. 16)

I agree with Dave Cuddy. People need to use peer-reviewed science. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is reviewing data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Both NASA and U.K. authorities have been accused of fudging data to lower older temperatures and increase newer temperatures to exhibit a “much larger warming trend.”

Unlike the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, these are expert scientists who will be looking at the integrity of the data without an agenda to push. They have asked for both sides of the debate to submit data to be reviewed for a report. It is not finished yet, but you can find them at tempdatareview.org/.

I also agree that we should have objective science. Instead we get scientists like David Suzuki ignoring other peer-reviewed scientists like Dr. Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Popova has written a peer-reviewed article discussing the evidence of five global warmings and four ice ages in the last 400,000 years, due to activity on the sun. Unlike Suzuki, she does not have an agenda. She is simply looking at the data and stating the likelihood of another ice age by 2030. She is cautious about commenting on human influences on global warming, as the data shows that we would be in a global warming trend regardless of human influence, followed by an ice age. She is not suggesting we continue down the path of consumption we are on.

Todd Stewart

View Royal