14. Gasparrini, A. et al., Mortality risk attributable
to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study, The Lancet 386
(9991): 369–375, 2015.
15. Ridley, M., Why climate change is good for the
world, The Spectator, 19 October 2013, spectator.
16. See especially the discussions of Richard Klein,
Laurens Bouwer, and Sari Kovats in Laframboise,
D., The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken
for the World’s Top Climate Expert, Ivy Avenue
Press, Toronto, pp. 8–21, 2011.
17. Laframboise, ref. 16, pp. 45–46.
18. Laframboise, ref. 16, p. 14.
19. Laframboise, ref. 16, pp. 26–32.
20. See Kulikovsky, A.S., Creationism, science and
peer-review, J. Creation 22( 1): 44–49, 2008;
21. Laframboise, ref. 16, pp. 35–38.
22. See Lewis, N. and Crok, M., A Sensitive Matter:
How the IPCC buried evidence showing good
news about global warming, GWPF Reports,
23. Laframboise, ref. 16, p. 9.
24. Dyson, F., Heretical thoughts about science and
dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society, 7 August 2007.
25. Christy, J.R., Open debate: Wikipedia-style,
Nature 463:732, 11 February 2010.
27. McNider, R. and Christy, J.R., Why Kerry is
flat wrong on climate change, Wall Street J.,
20 February 2014.
28. See the summary and explanation of the emails
in Costella, J., The Climategate Emails, Lavoisier
Group, 2010; lavoisier.com.au.
29. McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R., Hockey sticks,
principal components, and spurious significance,
Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005.
30. See Climategate email from Phil Jones to Tom
Wigley, 22 October 2004.
31. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., Richardson,
M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs,
P., and Skuce, A., Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the scientific
literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 8( 2), 2003.
32. Legates, D.R. et al., Climate consensus and
‘misinformation’: A Rejoinder to “Agnotology,
scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning
of climate change”, Science & Education 24( 3):
33. See Steve McIntyre’s commentary on BEST
methodology at climateaudit.org/2011/10/22/
34. See Steve McIntyre’s commentary on BEST data
quality at climateaudit.org/2011/11/06/best-data-
35. Rohde, R. et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature
Averaging Process, Geoinformatics &
Geostatistics: An Overview 1( 2): 6, 2013.
36. See the table in Schmidt, G.A. and Karl, T.R.,
2013 Global Temperatures, NOAA/NASA, 2014,
p. 8. All the years presented in the table fall within
the error of 0.1° C. Because the trend is less than
the error, it is statistically insignificant.
Peter S. Ungar is a distinguished professor and director of the
Environmental Dynamics Program
at the University of Arkansas. He
has published a couple of books on
teeth, diet, and human origins. His
new book, Evolution’s Bite, follows
a similar theme, describing how long-term global climate change, vegetation,
food availability, dietary habits, and
dental morphology all affected each
other with regards to human origins.
How the structure and function
of teeth affect each other
A key idea throughout the book
is that since food and nutrition is
necessary for organisms to keep living,
the method of food acquisition and
processing is also fundamental to an
organism’s well-being. The better an
organism can acquire nutrients and
energy, the more offspring it will leave
behind. Teeth are 97% minerals, and
are much stronger than bones, allowing
them to survive over time, so are a
major source of inferring dietary habits
of extinct organisms. In the case of
teeth, function and morphology go
together largely hand in glove. Thus,
carnivores such as lions have sharp
teeth which can be used for tearing and
slicing flesh, whereas herbivores such
as cows have flat teeth for grinding
leaves and plants. In the case of
primates, such as monkeys and apes,
teeth have a rectangular crown, with
four or five cusps, crests running up
and over the cusps, forming basins in
between them. Food can be sheared
between individual crests, while it can
be crushed with cusps pressed into the
basins of the opposing teeth (p. 18).
The fact that certain animals
have teeth with a given morphology
seemingly designed for processing a
certain kind of food does not exclude
them from processing other types of
food, something which the author also
asserts. For example, gorillas in the
Central African Republic are seasonal
frugivores, in that they sometimes
eat fruits, even though their teeth are
designed to process leaves (pp. 43–45).
Ungar describes the Cope–Osborn
‘tritubercular’ model of mammalian
Taking the bite out of
evolution—critical review of
Evolution’s Bite: A story of teeth,
diet, and human origins
Peter S. Ungar
Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 2017