Climate arguments distort science

In reading Gary Ellis' letter (“Writers produce no scientific arguments,” March 29), a reply to criticism of his March 8 column, “Global warming debunked,” I can only say that it probably is because Ellis offered few scientific arguments in his column.

Ellis cites an answer given by Richard Alley, a respected scientist who believes in global warming, to a specific question regarding a study by Don Easterbrook. Ellis then takes Alley's words out of context and boldly states that Alley admitted that the earth may be cooling, which is an outright fabrication.

That is not what Alley said: “If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337.

This is more like a poisoned body trying to heal itself.

I also found it ironic when he stated, “The probability of a theory being right based on 150 years of data is essentially zero.”

And yet in countering his critics he writes, “explain the science behind why global atmospheric temperatures did not increase in the last 15 years when atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising.”

Even if it were true, if 150 years of data is essentially zero, then 15 years of data must be worth less than zero. You can't have it both ways. That wouldn't be scientific.

John Burgess

Cedar Rapids