“Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)

Short recap for the FSM viewers and readers:

The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down.  The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature.  Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference [1]).  The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature.  (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.)   The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths.  I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions.  After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand [1].  The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around. 

Ideology of climate alarmism (as preached by IPCC, complicit  NGOs and Obama administration) can be defined as a primitive cult complete with worshiping idols, claiming that natural disasters happen because we do not listen to its shamans and necessary sacrifices. Many prominent scientists and non-scientists talked about that.  Some examples: Lindzen: “As with any cult … they get more and more fanatical“, Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate: “Global warming has really become a new religion.“, Monckton of Brenchley: “They have gotten religion, but they call it science“, Cardinal Pell: “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.“, William Happer, Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University: “climate change cult“,  Michael Crichton (about environmentalism in general), and myself here & here. The energy industry (including nuclear and hydro power, not only fossil fuels) is demanded as the first sacrifice.  I will not speculate what demands will follow, but humans emit CO2 when we breathe, and these emissions are substantial (about 5% of the total).  There is nothing metaphorical about calling climate alarmism a cult or a religion.

2) Al Gore has been a fanatical follower of the climate cult since at least 1988.  As a Vice President of Democrats, having science among his responsibilities, Al Gore was a “patron saint” of the scientists and the distributor-in-chief of NSF grants. Thus, Al Gore had almost total control of American scientific institutions from 1992 – 2000.  I can guess that he did everything in his power to eliminate actual scientists and to put environmentalists (especially climatists) in positions of power in all those organizations.  Bill Clinton has contributed by cutting off funding to civilian nuclear research, probably at urging of the environmental NGOs [2].

The National Academy was not an exception.  Its previous president is no better than the current one, Marcia McNutt. Ralph Cicerone has made a career in the “Earth System Science” and has a personal stake in climate alarmism.  He was also a Chancellor of infamous UC Irvine in 1998 – 2005.  Following the so-called Climategate (2009-2010), Science published a weird statement in defense of climate science fraud and its perpetrators, signed by 255 Academy members. Science illustrated the statement by a fake photo, purporting to show polar bears in distress.  No counter-statement from the Academy or its members was issued.  It seems now is too late for concerns about the National Academy, which is beyond repair.  The nation needs an alternative to it.

The situation in the scientific societies is no better. The American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Association were the last to stand because they had the most knowledge in the subject matter, but even they cracked in the end (the societies, not their members).  The federal government yields enormous power these days.  In this case, its pressure is combined with the pressure from the UN bodies and UN affiliated NGOs, hostile foreign governments and media. On the bright side, some resistance is going on in APS.

A favorite canard by the climate alarmists is that skeptics are funded by “fossil fuels interests.”  Nothing could be further from truth.  “Fossil fuels” corporations do not fund skeptics.  On the contrary, they fund environmentalists and alarmists, and avoid any association with skeptics.  Apparently, the corporations have adopted such policies after RICO had been applied to the tobacco companies in the late 90’s.  The majority (or at least a large part) of all scientists and engineers knowledgeable in physics, chemistry and Earth sciences are employed or contracted by oil and gas companies and related industries.  The effect of the RICO expansion was to silence these independent scientists and to shut down all independent research related to the “climate change.”  That made Al Gore and associates a monopoly in the climate-related sciences.

Whatever the original motive to expand the reach of RICO was, the climate alarmists (and the Left, in general) understand very well that they can silence productive Americans by threatening businesses that employ them, or with which they are or were “associated.”  And they threaten businesses continuously and hysterically.

3) Marcia McNutt, current president of the National Academies of Sciences, was the chief editor of Science magazine.  In that position she implemented policy to represent only one side (the wrong side) of the scientific debate on “climate change” and CO2, and shut off all other sides.  Although she went to extremes on this policy, she was not the one to start it.  Richard Lindzen (Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Science) reported the following incident [3]:

“In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted–an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat.”

Unfortunately, it became the policy of almost all peer-reviewed journals in the U.S. and Europe.  As bizarre as it sounds, skeptics are forced to publish their scientific papers in Chinese journals! Some examples are: Monckton, Soon, Legates, Briggs, Why models run hot, published in the Chinese Bulletin of Science.

FSM stands for Fake Stream Media, which includes CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, WaPo, HuffPo etc.

References and Some Literature

[1] Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,  Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (2014)

[2] Rupert Darwall, The Age of Global Warming: A History (2013) – a book

[3] Richard Lindzen,  Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992) – excerpts and a link to the full article
[4] Richard Lindzen, 
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (2008 – 2012)

[5] Richard Lindzen,  Science in the Public Square:  Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents (2013)

[6] U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (2008 – 2009)
[7] Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter , S. Fred SingerWhy Scientists Disagree About Climate Change (November 23, 2015)
[8] Ivar Giaever, Nobel laureate in Physics: Resignation from American Physical Society (2011)
[9] Oregon Petition (1998) signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts

[10] Watts Up With That? – the leading website on the “climate change” debate, run by meteorologist Anthony Watts

Leave a Reply