Thank for you the sound and rational column, Jim. Now let’s wait for the knuckle-dragging global warming alarmists to wake up and spill their organic “fair-trade” coffee while reading this on their iPhones.

Hey Jim, did you read those emails? They weren’t nearly as much of a smoking gun as they have been made out to be. Also congrats on being like 2 months behind the ball on this one.

Wow…what a truly horrific article. You’ve managed to bring up pretty much all of the talking points that have accumulated over the last 5-10 years from the far-right, tone-deaf, climate denial community. Even bringing up DDT…wow, impressive. You and your tin-foil hat are right, Jim…everyone studying climate change - including professors at this very university where you are getting your biological sciences graduate degree - is part of a massive conspiracy for wealth and power. Congratulations on this original expos�.

Let me just respond to the main slab of meat in your article: ClimateGate (as time does not permit me to address all of the errors). Yes, there was some unethical behavior by some climate scientists who were terribly pissed off by the unrelenting climate denial community. They absolutely should be admonished for some of their activities. But linking this scandal with the entire climate science community and claiming the whole thing (decades and decades of excellent research) is a farce is the epitome of being disingenuous (or just ignorant). The AP performed a thorough analysis of the leaked e-mails and conclusively showed that “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions”. http://tinyurl.com/ydkya7a

For those who think the AP is just part of the librul media machine, try reading the very extensive analysis of each of the e-mails by Yale University. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/12/cru-emails-whats-really-there/

Jim, you are a very deceptive or very misguided columnist. I suggest airing your criticisms of climate change science with actual climate scientists at this university before you start writing your next vitriolic piece. You are doing this newspaper and this university an incredible disservice.

Popular Mechanics also had a great article on what the stolen e-mails really mean for climate change science. Main take-home point: climate change science is not a teetering house of cards.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

Do you know the actual reason that DDT was banned? It wasn’t because it was harmful to humans, it was because it contaminated sources of food for birds. The DDT would then get inside of the birds and cause their eggs to have thinner than normal shells, causing them to hatch sooner than normal and have lower survival rates. I’m not going to cover the other errors, since other people have already done that. And to the writer - what background do you have in atmospheric or environmental science? Did you talk to any scientists from this field? I know we have plenty of them right here at UW, and they are always willing to talk about their findings. For the record, I do feel that the global warming claims are somewhat exaggerated, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t occurring. The Earth is warming at a faster rate than it has during any recent period, and greenhouse gases, like CO2, are partly to blame. And for the record, I do have somewhat of a background on the subject as an AOS student who has taken classes on global climate and other similar topics.

Jim,

Is this article a joke? It’s hard to take you seriously when your writing is plagued with spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors. Please proofread. I honestly read this article and thought it would be a better fit for The Onion. After rereading it, my emotions went from disbelief to fumingly mad to thinking my blood might actually be boiling. You’re discrediting the University of Wisconsin’s Biology Department as well as The Badger Herald, and I’m a bit ashamed to admit I am among your classmates. Go ahead and keep your ignorant opinion, but please check your facts before you try to spread them to others.

    This article is full of misinformation. It's one thing to renounce environmentalism based on exaggeration and ignorance, but this article makes its points by ignoring all kinds of facts.
Questioning climate models and scientific predictions is one thing, but the article goes on to make unsubstantiated claims like �Falling global temperatures�are no longer cooperating with global warming predictions.� I�d be interested in learning more about where this came from; average global temperatures obviously fluctuate from year to year, and the upward trend is only observable on a larger scale � annual fluctuations are equivalent to noise present in any kind of scientific data. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect has been accepted by physicists since the mid 19th century. It�s not up for debate. Also obvious is the fact that humans have released greenhouse gases. It follows that human activity is affecting the earth�s climate to some extent. Scientists should be debating this extent, and politicians should be debating how to act. To suggest that greenhouse gases we emit will somehow have no effect on the atmosphere is simply wrong. And as for �Climategate,� this kind of behavior on the part of scientists is nothing new. Read Arthur Koestler�s The Case of the Midwife Toad for a much crueler example of a paradigm defense. Attacking a few messengers should not invalidate their message, especially when it is grounded in the work of so many other researchers, dating back to the pre-Civil War era. 
Allard�s love of fossil fuel emissions also ignores the presence of other dangerous compounds, such as nitrites/nitrates and sulfites/sulfates, which cause other environmental problems. It�s ignorant to suggest that opposition to fossil fuel emissions has only arisen in recent years, in response to hype created by Al Gore.
I also question the article�s characterization of environmental policy as �wealth destroying;� developing green energy will create many non-exportable jobs within the U.S. and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which will both benefit national security and keep American money within the U.S. Much research at prominent institutions like the UW is centered upon developing safer, cleaner, and more efficient technologies. Should we stop this research and continue to depend on an outdated resource that will eventually become too expensive to extract?
Finally, the article suggests that DDT was banned because of �junk science� because it hasn�t been shown to harm humans. This is absurd; DDT was banned because it endangered already-scarce predatory birds by weakening their eggshells and causing stillbirths. DDT is still used in a restricted manner to control disease; part of its danger came from the manner in which it was indiscriminately sprayed.
While it�s admirable to combat �doomsday predictions� and support dissenting opinions in the name of science, it�s also important to acknowledge obvious facts. Ignoring what�s already been laid out by a mixture of simple science and common sense to fit an agenda is irresponsible. �Climategate� showed, above all, that scientists are human and therefore subject to prejudices. What it did not do is invalidate over a century of research and make fossil fuels a viable permanent energy source.

Global Warming(tm) might be a problem. It’s unlikely that humans play a big part - more likely that the Sun is the prime mover. I’ll take the Goracle’s worshipers seriously just as soon as the models touted by the Warmists can accommodate the Medieval Warm Period and Maunder Minimum, or even recent weather.

I worry much more about Global Cooling, which would kill millions if not billions and probably mean the end of civilization. And the sunspot activity has been very low recently.

Jim Allard: Proof that friends don’t let friends read Atlas Shrugged.

I would be willing to provide you with some DDT if you want to eat it Jim.

Great article as usual Mr. Allard. I always enjoy reading them and look forward to them. I can’t stand most of the stuff written in the herald and thanks for continuing to go against the usual liberal flow here at the UW. Most refreshing!

abortion will solve the climate crisis