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 This historical document, signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de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
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)
As US Senator and later a vice president, Al Gore successfully imposed climate alarmism on the scientific institutions and mostly 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
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
Excerpts from Richard Lindzen, op-ed in Los Angeles Times, 1997.
Reflections on Kyoto
In many ways, the science was irrelevant to the outcome. However, it is worth remembering that even the IPCC could not hide the immense uncertainties concerning such an elementary process as the greenhouse effect. Continue reading Lindzen’s Reflections on Kyoto, 1997
Many good papers, written by real scientists on the subject of global warming prior to Al Gore’s vice presidency, are scanned as images and are not indexed by Web search engines. These three articles by Richard Lindzen belong to this set. Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 1989 – 1992 articles
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, 2009 Senate Statement
In 2001, Naomi Oreskes was still on the side of light. Paper Philosophical Issues in Model Assessment, authored by her and her husband Kenneth Belitz, demonstrated that the major climate models were not valid and used by “major national and international agencies” misleadingly. Continue reading Climate Models are Crap – Naomi Oreskes, 2001
Andrew Solow, a statistician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, has said of the contention that we will be too late if we wait to do something about the greenhouse effect until we are sure of it: “This argument applies equally to an invasion of aliens from space.” (The whole paragraph is from NY Books Review, 1989)
Selected quotes from three House and Senate testimonies by Richard Lindzen in 1991 – 1997 Continue reading Richard Lindzen, Congress Testimonies, 1991-1997
Eugenics is the closest historical parallel to the climatist pseudo-science. Richard Lindzen explored similarities between both in a book chapter Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics (1995). His conclusion: Continue reading Science x Politics: Climatist Science and Eugenics
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
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)
In 1994, Naomi Oreskes authored an article in Science, correctly refuting climate models. Since then, the article has been cited by 2,443 papers – a huge number. Consider some excerpts: Continue reading Naomi Oreskes rejected climate models in 1994
Naomi Oreskes interviewed Prof. William Nierenberg in 2000. These are the words of Professor Nierenberg (from the interview transcript): Continue reading Interview with Prof. Nierenberg in 2000
Oregon Petition (Global Warming Petition Project, 1998) was signed by 31,487 American scientists and experts, including 9,029 with PhD. Continue reading Oregon Petition (1998) signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts