Coming Out of the Climate Change Closet

by Matt Patterson on January 27, 2012

in Blog, Features

Post image for Coming Out of the Climate Change Closet

So much for consensus.

For years, climate change cultists have attempted to shut down public discourse over global warming by assuring us that “the debate is over,” that scientists are in lockstep agreement that Man is steam-frying his own planet.

That was always bunk, of course.  For one, if the scientific debate was really over, no one would have to say it.  There just wouldn’t be any debate.  No one these days goes around saying “the debate is over” about heliocentrism.  That’s because no one questions the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun – there is literally no debate.

Second, the fact that it was so often politicians and/or celebrities (or a bizarre hybrid of the two like Al Gore) intoning the “debate is over” canard, instead of actual scientists, was a major clue that something was amiss with the “consensus” claim.

(The Washington Post famously reported on Gore’s scientific acumen: “For all of Gore’s later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6…and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.”)

Sadly for Gore et al, a growing number of scientists are publically expressing skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, emboldened by a flood of new data that casts doubt on the whole “climate change” paradigm (I address some of this new data in my latest piece for the Washington Examiner).

Just last September,  Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the  American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy.  In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever explained:

“I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

‘Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’

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.”

And this week in the Wall Street Journal, a group of sixteen prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, come forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing that:

“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

So why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe?  The scientists offer their own view, again in the Journal:

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

The entire piece is an absolutely stunning rebuke to the whole bogus  “consensus” argument.  It is well  worth reading and sharing.  Hopefully it will encourage other scientists who harbor doubts to come forward.  The truth is that this debate is not over:  It’s really only just beginning.

And that’s a good thing.

Tom Harris January 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Bravo – good piece.

The climate (realist) science and economics hearings that took place on December 15, 2011 before The Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources may be viewed, along with all the supporting data and Q&A’s at the following Webpage:

It is very important.

Tom Harris

Adam Marshall January 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm

Excellent article! Each year the temperature stays the same and yet the liberal scientific community has their temperatures rise with the constant facts that prove their beliefs are ridiculous. The only cure for this rise in personal temperature is to admit the facts do not support ‘global warming’ and start being scientists again. Follow the facts, wherever they may lead.

Adam Marshall

joel January 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm

The degree of fear installed in writers and scientists by the global warming advocates has been extreme.

A simple review of climate history made a mockery of the Mann hockey stick , for example.

Reading about the Viking history of Greenland, a book written in the 1950’s stated the simple orthodoxy of the time. It just got too cold for the Vikings. They had to be able to farm. Catching fish couldn’t supply all their needs, and they became cut off from Europe by the cold weather.

A book written in the 1990’s on the same topic stated that “We will probably never know why the colony died out.” Did the Inquisition inspire such obedience?

The extreme ignorance of many was shocking. One archaeologist opined that because they found no fish bones in Viking food dumps in Greenland, Vikings didn’t eat fish. That is why they died out. Geez. It was pointed out that the Viking ground up fish bones to make a nutritious paste. You get the picture. Ignorance, dishonesty, greed, ambition, cowardice.

Meanwhile, everybody knew. It got too cold. Far north settlements all along the rim of the Scandinavian world died out. The extreme degree of corruption of our society is on display in the global warming scam. There should be a thorough house cleaning, but, we all know that won’t happen.

Fishingman January 29, 2012 at 5:19 am

In 1840 the explorer James Ross was the first person to do a marine survey of what was later named for him, The Ross Ice Shelf. In 1912, Robert Falcon Scott, the second man to lead an expedition to the geographic south pole, also surveyed The Ross Ice Shelf. Both men were chosen to lead their expeditions because of their navigation and marine survey skills. Falcons entire party perished after reaching the pole ( He refused to use dogs and proved that men couldn’t drag enough food for such a long journey and back ). A later expedition brought back his logs and journals to England. A noted naturalist of the age was quoted as ” lamenting that the Great Ross Ice Shelf has retreated by over 50 miles between surveys 62 years apart. He wished he had seen it it all it’s glory. Ross discovered the ice shelf in a sailboat without a steam engine. Scott’s ship was more technologically advanced, it had auxiliary stem power. Sail was used for distance and coal powered steam for power and maneuverability in the ice. So the largest Antarctic ice shelf was already receding 1 mile a year when first discovered during the Age Of Sail. I don’t pretend to know what was causing this melting of the ice shelf. Unfortunately, man made global warmist claim to know. They blame it on something that did not exist when it was first noted that the ice shelf was retreating. Just last week astrologist came out with a 13th astrological sign. They say that the earth is wobbling on it’s axis and tilting one end toward the sun. If their claims are true it seems to me that this may have more cause and effect on climate change due to ocean and wind current disruption than the politically correct ” man made CO2″. Anyone know how I can get some government cheese to fund a study of this?

Bob January 29, 2012 at 10:00 am

To the extent that there is science, there can be no consensus, ever. To the extend that there is consensus, there can be no science, ever. There is no such thing as “settled science”. This entire global warming canard, or even the global cooling canard from the ’70’s can be summed up with two fairy tales from our youth: Chicken Little and The Emperor’s New Clothes. In the first, we learned not to run amok with only a small sampling of data or with carefully restricted data. In the second, we learned not to be intimidated by those who say, “It is so, and anyone who disagrees deserves to have no say in the matter.” Well, some of us learned this as youths.

David Powell January 29, 2012 at 12:29 pm

I learned in 9th grade General Science class in 1950 that the sun controls the climate on all planets in our solar system. I believe this is still true and Man, in spite of his great accomplishments and even greater audacity, cannot change this “natural” sequence of cycles. I agree with the author, that thankfully, “the debate is not over!” dp

JFG January 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm

Excellent. Applause all around for Mr. Giaever’s bravery. The late Petr Beckmann referred to degreed persons who promoted hoaxes such as anthropogenic global warming as “ex-scientists.” Oh, to have Professor Beckmann back again. The alarmists would be running for the hills in the face of his withering fire.

dwstick January 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm

I stopped watching the lamestream news media years ago due to their ever-increasing leftist agenda-driven ‘reporting’. Yet I do wonder if these defections from the global-warming alarmist peddling hucksters get any coverage. Doubt it; most of the ‘reporters’ over at ABCCBSNBCCNNPBSMSNBC are all fairly reliable kool-aid drinkers!

hwm98266 January 29, 2012 at 6:46 pm

….The earth has effectively been in a perpetual ‘Ice Age’ for the past 2,500,000 years; in which the Ice Age extreme cold durations are about 120,000 years (90%) while the inter-glacial warm periods are only about 12,000 years (10%). ‘Ice Age’ knowledge is based on the proxy temperatures and other data discovered from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and some cases ancient tree rings. This evidence and data is recovered from ice cores, (Greenland, Antarctic, Mountain Glaciers), ocean, sea, lake and river sediments, cave stalagmites and rock that has been analyzed by electron and other microscopes, computers, test devices and satellites. NONE of this evidence links CO2 as a forcing factor in any global warming period.

shooter January 29, 2012 at 10:11 pm

The cause of all wars; “Someone wanting someone else’s stuff”. All socialists want someone else’s stuff. The warmist’s are socialists(or idiots) and they have declared war on the rest of us. Getting tied down by this debate is a waste of time. We win the debate and they switch to some other “man made disaster”. “Nitrogen” is already in the pipeline, along with “ocean acidification”(I heard that one 35 years ago. The head of the U of Miami oceanography dept said the ocean would be dead in 3 years without immediate action). It time to speak plain about what this is all about, and to plan for a battle. Good article.

Rob January 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm

Fishingman if you want to raise some cash, just claim you have proof of global warming. Then follow the money to the White House and all the way to the U.N. !

Wampy January 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm

… and the earth is flat!

jimbojinx January 30, 2012 at 12:40 am

Look what just came out of the UK-from the Univ of east Anglia Climate Research Group which is one of the the major sources for the United Nation’s IPCC :

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

Read more:–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kuvQt4tY

Two GREAT skeptical pieces in the space of 48 hrs….”My cup runneth over ” !

sion kranky January 30, 2012 at 4:46 am

so here we sit… hottest summer ever, wettest autumn ever, hottest surface temperatures ever, biggest floods ever, warmest winter ever, strongest winds ever, biggest glacial melts ever…highest levels of CO2 ever….biggest number of humans dying of starvation ever…but hey global warming isn’t a reality!… you guys are kidding right?… when you’re on your death bed..please realise i’m TEACHING the reality to kids… while you take the MONEY for lining your coffin, regards simon k australia…

stew January 30, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Teaching Simon? Reeeeeeally? So everything’s due to global warming? Are you so pompous to admit that you MIGHT NOT BE CORRECT in what amounts to a prediction?

Teachers should have open minds on issues like this. You, sir, are an ideologist.

klem February 3, 2012 at 1:03 pm

The thing is, all of the things you listed above are merely evidence that the climate changes, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause. You probably know this already, but choose to deny it.

valricoslash January 30, 2012 at 8:04 am

As a retired USAF meteorologist I believe that man-made global warming is pure BS. When I started on active duty inteh 1970’s there was a fear of global cooling. To think that global climatology can be modeled for the future with any accuracy is pure, unadultrated bunk. For one, there is not a dense enough network of temperature measuring stations around the world. Secondly, many of these reporting stations are unreliable at best and there are vast holes in the land based network over Africa and Asia as well as over the oceans. This means that in order to create a model you have to interpolate the temperatures in between. This is done using smoothing techniques and many of the points on the grid are interpolations of interpolations of interpolations. You get the point. This is where the fraud comes in. Small errors become large ones as the grid is developed. The data must also be adjusted (normalized) for elevation. By the way, climatology by definition is the study of past weather conditions. Projecting into the future is called foreasting and I don’t know a single forecaster that is even remotely accurate, using the most sophisticated models today, beyond a few days.

klem February 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Have you noticed that most meteorologists are climate skeptics? So the alarmists have been targeting meteorologists saying they only know about weather, they do not understand anything about climate. I guess only the priests of the Church of Climastrology can understand it.

Jim Anderson January 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm

In my opinion, man made climate change is now and has always been a political issue, not a scientific one. Where else do you find cries for central control of industry, quotas, operations run to government specs, no patience with regard to profits or costs of doing business? Control over the eeryday lives of individuals, dictating what they can use and what they cannot emit? Dictating the prices of everyday goods? Raising prices, taxes, and fees on things the government deems as “bad for the environment”?

Socialism, Marxism, Communism. Take your pick.

podbaydoors January 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm

When the Soviet Union collapsed the enemy was forced to step out of the shadows into the warm hands of the educational establishment and the western mainstream media. All of the lies and distortions used to instill fear and pacify any opposition would be patently obvious were it not for the social pressure applied to generations of recipients of public school pablum. (inculcation, indoctrination, education)
I have a cat I believe to be in possession of a greater intellect than the median BS grad. Fools are easily persuaded by credentials in lieu of logic.
Good fracking luck converting a leftist.

Dale January 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm

The solutions to global warming is most definitely a political issue. Everyone potentially has something to loose and few have reason to trust that harsh medicine would be administered fairly. However, global temps are rising and we will be failing our grandchildren if we continue to do nothing. Positive steps may hurt the oil companies the most, and perhaps that is why they pay for web sites like this. When the author of this piece insisted there is no global warming trend, that is when I gave up on his reasoning and stopped taking this site seriously.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 23 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: