I write in response to Mark Murphy's letter dated 20 June. I am a certified consulting meteorologist and an oceanographer, with over 25 years of experience, and a member of both the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Union.
I am also one of the many meteorologists who do not believe that the recent global warming is mostly anthropogenic. In fact, most of my peers agree with the view that we cannot prove one way or the other whether this warming is part of a natural cycle, particularly since the models being used in these predictions cannot reproduce the historical temperature patterns. A similar view was expressed by the American Association of State Climatologists, some of whom were either fired or threatened with dismissal because of their scientific views.
There is a wealth of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, albeit unreported in most media circles, to counter the hype generated by such propaganda as "An Inconvenient Truth." However, I certainly agree that we need to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, not only as an environmental issue, but also for security. We should not be paying billions of dollars to those states who use that money to kill us.
The earth has warmed (and cooled) similarly in the past and will continue to do so in the future, without any input from man. Our policy should be to plan for this eventuality, rather than try to change something that
can't be changed.