Category Archives: hidden gems

Freeman Dyson on the Soil as a Carbon Sink

Renowned physicist and mathematician Professor Freeman Dyson is a liberal. Nevertheless, he rejects climate alarmism and alleged “scientific consensus” that increase in the air CO2 concentration from burning fossil fuels and other human activities is harmful, or causes dangerous global warming.  But he has found and published a solution to this non-problem about ten years ago.  The solution is accumulating extra CO2 in the top soil.  Those who considered increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to be a problem had plenty of time to discuss, test, and start implementing his proposal. See Edge.org, August 9, 2007 (9,800 words). Continue reading Freeman Dyson on the Soil as a Carbon Sink

William Buckley on Liberals’ Facts Avoidance Habit

Some things don’t change. Buckley Jr., William. Up From Liberalism (1959):

“A second marked characteristic of the Liberal in debate with the conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about . Arguments based on fact are especially to be avoided. Many people shrink from arguments over facts because facts are tedious , because they require a formal familiarity with the subject under discussion , and because they can be ideologically dislocative . Many Liberals accept their opinions , ideas , and evaluations as others accept revealed truths , and the facts are presumed to conform to the doctrines , as any dutiful fact will ; so why discuss the fact?” (Kindle Locations 522-527).

I think that anybody who attempted to engage a Liberal in a climate debate would wholeheartedly endorse this statement.  Continue reading William Buckley on Liberals’ Facts Avoidance Habit

Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates

June 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal.  This historical document signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:

We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.

We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …

We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.

We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.

The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …

These wise words by the most distinguished scientists in the world Continue reading Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates

Richard Lindzen on the Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992)

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus – an article by Richard Lindzen from 1992, still relevant today! Some quotes (emphasis is mine):

“By early 1989 the popular media were declaring that “all scientists” agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential. By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy. Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving excessive exposure. – Same as today,  except that the “skeptics” are  called “deniers” now. Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992)

Prof. Fred Singer on Suppression of Science by Al Gore

As U.S. senator and later as vice president, Al Gore successfully imposed climate alarmism on scientific institutions and suppressed dissent. But, he had few failures and only some of them became publicly known. This book chapter by Professor Fred Singer tells about one of them, when Al Gore targeted him personally.  Excerpts from it follow.  Links in the excerpts are mine. Continue reading Prof. Fred Singer on Suppression of Science by Al Gore

Lindzen, 2001: Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support

By that time, the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change already had many Al Gore minions.  Nevertheless, it concluded that “the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.”  Richard Lindzen was a member of the NAS panel and a Lead Author in WGI of IPCC for its Third Assessment Report (TAR). Following are excerpts from his commentary on the NAS report (WSJ, 2001).

Continue reading Lindzen, 2001: Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support

William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.  Excerpts:

Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change.
Continue reading William Happer’s 2009 Senate Statement

Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001

From Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001

“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001

How Enviros Corrupted Science (unexpected witness)

The now infamous Naomi Oreskes eviscerated climate models in 1994.  But she has not stopped then.  In her 1998 paper Evaluation (Not Validation) of Quantitative Models, she disclosed a wider pattern of computer models being either misrepresented or deliberately produced to fit predetermined agendas.  The paper was not focused on the climate change studies, but showed the fraud behind The Limits to Growth (1972) and political pressure on scientists from EPA. Continue reading How Enviros Corrupted Science (unexpected witness)