Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

American Thinker

Global warming became a cause to save life on earth  before it had a chance to become good science.  The belief that fossil fuel  use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over  the media and political arena by storm.  The issue was politicized so  quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted.  We have never had  a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy  issues.

Everyone “knows” that global warming is true.   The public has no idea of the number of scientists — precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee — who  believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998.  We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and  promoting alternatives.  The public need to know the choices being made on  their behalf, and to have a say in the matter.  We are constantly told that  the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over.  It has just  begun.

What is never discussed is this: the theory of global  warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national  security.  Case in point: Obama’s recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline  in order to placate global warming advocates.  Key Democrat supporters fear  the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence  on the Mideast for oil.  The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and  the general public has had no say.  (For the impact on our economy, see my  article, “The Whole Country Can Be Rich.”)

President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. “What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are  condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”

Obama calls for the debate to end.  He cites  hurricanes as proof: “dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are  abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate  change is real.  Not only is it real — it’s here, and its effects are  giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”

Happily, our president is wrong.  The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900.  The  world’s top hurricane experts say that there is no  evidence that global warming affects storms.  There is no such thing as a  man-made hurricane.  Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are  entirely natural.  Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized  media.  We hear only one side.

More and more scientists are revolting against the  global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic  establishment, and media misrepresentation.  They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much  more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and  cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2,  and rising temperatures.  They also point out that the rising temperatures  that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

It  takes a lot of courage.  Scientists who report findings that  contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by  personal attacks.  This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist  system, not science in the free world.

Here is how it has worked.  The theory that  entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but  the Danish scientists “soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their  impeccable scientific credentials.”  Physicists at Europe’s most  prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they,  too, found their project blocked.  This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof — by a team of 63 scientists at CERN — that the  largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans.  But the director  of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the  public: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to  interpret them.  That would go immediately into the highly political arena  of the climate change debate.”

As  more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the  enforced consensus is ending.  The Royal Society, Britain’s premier  scientific institution — whose previous president declared that “the debate on  climate change is over” — “is being forced to review its statements on climate  change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising  temperatures. … The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing  to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of  certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.”  Most of the rebels  were retired, as one of them explained, “One of the reasons people like myself  are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at  risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is  not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been  effective.”

In  America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest  from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society’s policy  statement: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is  occurring.”  Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is  incontrovertible in science.

In  the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and  how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is  incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average  temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has  changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true)  means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human  health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming”  period.

In  2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, but he has since joined  100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: “We maintain that  the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly  overstated.”

Do  a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India,  but not in America.

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists,  and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that “the debate  on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”  Only 26%  attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”   APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at  all.  There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know  of.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world’s top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak “frankly” on global warming and announce that “as a scientist  I remain skeptical.”  She says she remained silent for fear of  personal attacks.  Dr. Simpson was a  pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not  yet good enough to predict weather — we cannot scientifically predict global  climate trends.

Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather  Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of  Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the  computer models are fed questionable data and  assumptions  that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to  see.

Recently we’ve had a perfect example of the enforced  global warming consensus falling apart.  Berkeley Professor Muller did a  media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature  data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is  warming.  Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had “settled the  climate change debate” and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was  committing a “cynical fraud.”

But within a week, Muller’s lead co-author, Professor  Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America),  saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global “temperature trend of the  last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of  carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising  relentlessly.”

This is nowhere near what the climate models were  predicting,” Prof Curry said.  “Whatever it is that’s going on here, it  doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.”  In fact, she added, in the wake of the  unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had  previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more  seriously.  They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of  clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have  done, she said, a long time ago.

Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller’s false  claims to the media that BEST proved global warming “highly unethical.”  Professor Muller, confronted with dissent,  caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that  global warming stopped increasing in 1998.

Media coverage on global warming has been criminally  one-sided.  The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came  from in the first place.  Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body.  The threat  of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international  climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing  countries.  It was political from the beginning,  with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N.  IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate.  Its scientific  reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

This is important.  Global warming theory did  not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to  understand our climate.  We still don’t understand global climate any more  than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer.  The science of  global climate is in its infancy.

Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American  policy.  The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports  in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions.   Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA  under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a  year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of  jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire  230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement  its [greenhouse gas] regime.

Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting  publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media  reports.  Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on  Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he  received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of  climate change on global oceans and fisheries.”  Here is what he has to say  on global warming:

It  is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing.  The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected  in the present scenarios … I would much rather have the present warm climate,  and even further warming…No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep  warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling  cycle that will last several decades or more.

That is why we must hear from all the best  scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous.  It is  very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so,  what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming.  If the  theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel  wealth responsibly and swiftly.

Instead, federal policies are based on global warming  fears.  Obama has adopted the California model.  The Global Warming  Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state.  California now has almost 12%  unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.

The country could be following North Dakota, where  oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created  40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust  energy sector.  These are good jobs.  An entry-level job on an oil rig  pays $70,000 a year.  A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000  a year in Wyoming’s Jonah Fields.  Brazil’s new offshore oil discoveries  are predicted to create 2 million jobs there.  We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.

When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we  threaten America’s economic viability.  For global warming alarmists who  believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to  fight it.  They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without  jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming  national bankruptcy.

This is not all about idealism. There are crasser  reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate.  Billions of  dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming.   The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers  to intrude into private business and our individual homes.  The government  can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you  are allowed to use.  In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, “[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s  dream.  If you control carbon, you control life.”

Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot  afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the possibility  that global warming theory might be true.  Limiting fossil fuels and  promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a “why not be on the safe  side,” commonsense approach.

There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in  this argument.  If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence, and has terrible negative side effects, you don’t  perform major surgery.  We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on  the off-chance that the sky may be falling.

There has been a high economic cost to limiting our  oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed  economic contraction.  Responsible government policy requires honest media  coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate.  Our  country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized  science and fear.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1f9mDCymZ

3 responses to “Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

  1. The Communist coup has been playing FX global warming against the United States to cripple our economy and deflate the power of our middle class. They restrict our petroleum resources, prevent us from developing new resources, make us dependent on foreign resources, and even use our tax dollars to develop foreign sources for other countries use and bar the United States from their use by treaty. Alternate energy is a joke but it does funnel billions to China who manufacture both solar and wind products. But why? They intend to destroy our Capitalistic Republic! They have to! The American people as a whole never embraced the New World Order. They overwhelmingly reject it. Without America becoming a member the NWO is doomed to failure. The USofA is still the Worlds Super Power! Without the actions of the coup we would be able to actually buy the bankrupted worlds banks and corporations. We The People could buy the world. But this would destroy Communism! Now who would actually care? CHINA! China now owns a large part of the Worlds Banks and corporations. They can’t let US take them over! This is a silent War and has been going on for many years. It almost reached fruition when they bought a President’s election. But the fraud was uncovered. Late, but uncovered none-the-less. Now we can fight this evil and save America from a takeover by this Communist coup. Vote the Communists out. Start a movement to have those that became traitors against the USA stand trial for treason. America will snap back in no time. Our debt to China can be ignored! WE will be AMERICA again, Home Of The Free. We will never be slaves to any New World Order. Join the fight. Fight for your America. That’s what America has always been about! The Communist Chinese will never defeat American Capitalism! Time for the Communists to get out of America!

  2. the same crap happens to scientists who have declared there has to be a creator. it’s just more control in order to gain more power.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s