In his Community Comment last Sunday, meteorologist Mike Maguire joined such scientific luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in calling global warming a “hoax.”

There is a lot of sarcasm out there, and rightfully so. Here is some good stuff, and the naysayers of global warming do deserve this!!!!!! If you want to read some please read this comment, typical of what I have read.


Apparently conspiring in this hoax is the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), widely considered the world’s authoritative panel on this issue.

The IPCC consists of more than 2,500 climate scientists, economists and risk experts representing more than 130 countries.

In 2007 the IPCC released its fourth report on this issue, stating that warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

The report said most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human caused) greenhouse gases, most importantly CO2.

Also conspiring in the “hoax” is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), an honorific society of 2100 members (including nearly 200 Nobel Prize winners) whose purpose is to advise the federal government on scientific and technological issues, including global warming.

The academy is widely considered the most distinguished scientific panel in the world. The NAS endorsed the IPCC report, as did the national academies of 32 nations. Also agreeing with the above consensus are numerous other scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society. (Is Maguire a member of the latter?).

If global warming is a “hoax,” it has to be the largest in human history.

To state that the above scientific consensus is mistaken (possible but unlikely) requires a massive arrogance. To call it a “hoax” requires even more. And what is the purpose of the “hoax?”  According to Maguire, scientists around the world want to control government (whose government?) as it relates to regulating CO2.

Seems like a rather modest goal for such a gigantic hoax. And why would so many scientists sacrifice their integrity by publishing false data to help achieve that goal? Who is leading this worldwide conspiracy? The “hoax” charge frankly defies all credibility.

Regarding what is now being called “Climategate”: On Dec. 4, 25 leading U.S. scientists sent an open letter to Congress to assure lawmakers that the content of the stolen emails from England’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has no bearing on scientists’ overall understanding that human activity is causing global warming.

The letter states that “opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the contents and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.”

Additionally, the letter cites an Oct. 21 letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations that stressed that conclusions that human activities are the primary cause of global warming are based on “multiple lines of evidence.”

Maguire states that “warming stopped after 1998,” simply because that year was the most recent peak in global average temperature. Yet, according to The Associated Press, the World Meteorological Organization is expected to confirm this was the warmest decade on record. Does that sound like “global cooling?”

As Maguire correctly points out, several factors influence global temperature, but, contrary to established physics and climatology principles, he seems to minimize the important influence of CO2.

Unfortunately, Maguire perpetuates the public confusion about the difference between meteorology (short-term weather changes) and climatology (long-term weather patterns).

As to his rhetorical question  “Would you believe the same weatherman if he was wrong 11 forecasts in a row, then tried to sell you on his long-range forecasts?” my answer is a definite “no.”

Especially this weatherman.

Finally, no credible scientist denies that “CO2 is essential to all life forms on earth” (as a source of food and a modifier of the climate). But if there is too much of it (more now than in at least the last two million years), it can and is having undesirable climatic effects which can override its positive influences. That’s pollution. Maguire asserts that “the truth is CO2 is not pollution.”  What is his definition of pollution?

With tongue in cheek, I suggest that Maguire lend his expertise to the IPCC, the NAS, and the 192-nation Copenhagen conference so they can realize that they are all part of an international scam and can turn their attention to more important matters.

I do strongly agree with two statements in his final paragraph: “Don’t believe me” and “Educate yourself on the subject.”

But I would add: carefully choose your source of information. For example, check the websites of the IPCC ( and the Union of Concerned Scientists is

Jim Brenneman of Newburgh is Professor Emeritus in biology at the University of Evansville.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: