Category Archives: L0

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  This historical document, signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de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

CAG, CAN, MediaMatters, UCS …

01/24/2017: Correction to the CAG at War with the USA essay:  the first batch of the incriminating CRU emails was released in 2009.  Climategate 2.0 was the release of the second batch in 2011.  The enemies of America became emboldened after Obama re-election in 2012.  The Climate Alarmism Governance started its undeclared war at some time in 2010-2013. End of Correction.

An example of the centralized propagation of the Climate Alarmism Governance (CAG) resolutions is an article, published on MediaMatters, December 31, 2015: Continue reading CAG, CAN, MediaMatters, UCS …

Climate Alarmism Command

Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement?  Do you still believe it is based on science, possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science?  No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”.) Read what they say, and think again.

*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:

The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.

Global environmental governance is the intersection of global governance with environmental affairs.
Continue reading Climate Alarmism Command

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)

Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

On persecution of scientists, dissenting from con science of climate alarmism.  Excerpts from Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, 2006.

Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm … Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. [In 2006 – AH] Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006

Prof. Fred Singer on Suppression of Science by Al Gore

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

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, 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, 2009 Senate Statement

How “Climate Science” has Taken over the Science

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Richard Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Originally published on November 29, 2008; revised on September 21, 2012. In this article Richard Lindzen (a member of the National Academy of Sciences and seven other scientific societies and academies), lifts the veil on the internal workings of American scientific institutions to show their capture by climate alarmism prior to 2008, and he mentions some individual culprits by their names.  Examples (emphasis and links are mine throughout the article):

Continue reading How “Climate Science” has Taken over the Science

Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.

“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”

Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony

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