To the editor:

Charlie Perry has a mildly interesting idea on climate change that’s not ready for prime time. And the Journal-World’s lead story (Sept. 7) does its readership a disservice. Here’s why. First, as to science:

1. Contrary to Perry’s implication, major climate change models do account for solar energy fluctuations, using the same solar data Perry uses.

2. Unlike the real science he criticizes: a. Perry doesn’t have a full scientific model. He has the germ of an idea; b. Perry doesn’t have a broad range of scientific data. He has one rather contrived correlation based on data mining between three series of numbers. He hasn’t directly measured the size of the claimed effect of sunspots on cloud formation.

Second, as to journalism:

1. This story does far more to fuel climate change denial and conspiracy theories than the Journal-World has ever done to propagate real climate science. The few tepid caveats it carries are buried on page 6.

2. The Journal-World should have noticed the red flags typical of fringe science: a. Perry’s premature claim to be revolutionizing climate science, before he has measured the size of the key effect; b. Perry’s thin publication record relevant to climate change; c. Perry’s inability to get funding (apparently, not even from the big energy and anti-government deep pockets that are supporting climate change denial).

3. With no disrespect intended for the reporter, the Journal-World should consider hiring stringers who specialize in the difficult area of science reporting and could have criticized Perry’s science.