Clinging to the science that isn’t there

Andrew L. Urban.

So many alarmists, so few truths. They cling to the man-made climate warming mantra that ‘The Science” is unequivocal and settled, with some commentators and activists trying to contrast the global response to the coronavirus with the response to the alleged man-driven climate change. “If you follow the science on the virus, why not the science on climate?’ as Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese and others urge.

This is a dishonest pursuit. It is simply untrue that science has solved the riddle of climate change. ‘The scientists tell us’ is just a propaganda slogan. Here is why – from some of the many scientists who are never quoted, never mentioned in the (compromised) mass media.

“The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary.” So say scientists Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter (1942-2016), S. Fred Singer in their paper Why scientists disagree about global warming (November, 2015).

Writing in Climate Etc, (Consensus versus the Trump Administration) respected climate scientist Dr Judith Curry states:

“The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models, the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments, the overall framing of the problem and overconfident conclusions in the face of incomplete evidence and understanding.” In other words, scientists are NOT in agreement on the drivers of the climate.

In Mark Steyn’s A Disgrace to the Profession (Stockade Books, 2015), a comprehensive debunking of the consensus and in particular targeting Michael Mann’s infamous and discredited hockey stick graph, there are 100 scientists quoted who, far from supporting any consensus on global warming, raise their dissenting arguments and their concerns about misleading information.

“Some of them,” Steyn explains,”are distinguished emeritus profs and Fellows of the Royal Society, but some are young up-and-comers. Many are from the heart of the Anglo-American climate establishment, but others are from Europe and elsewhere and don’t quite understand why a small clique of outliers singlehandedley determines the “consensus” in the field …”

These scientists contradict the view that deniers are all right wing nut jobs. Some are from the Scandinavian social-democrat left, some are hardcore Marxists. And Stephen McIntyre, the Toronto mining engineer who dismantled Mann’s hockey stick graph (and is included in the book), is regarded as a ‘conventional Trudeaupian liberal’, as Steyn puts it. Mainstream scientists like Eduardo Zorita and Simon Tett are far from ‘deniers’. This group of scientists demonstrate that there is no consensus to support Co2 as the main driver of climate change. (Zorita is a Spanish paleoclimatologist; Tett is a climatologist working at the University of Edinburgh.)

Take Professor William Happer, PHD Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton: “The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it … I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick…

“The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.”

the big lie

The claim that 97% of scientists agree about CO2’s role in global warming is absurd even on the face of it, yet it is used as a shield against informed debate.

Dishonesty and falsification of data has characterised the warmist climate claims for decades (from Mann’s hockey stick to the various scandals such as the Uni of East Anglia’s Climategate emails), yet is brushed aside and the word ‘science’ is hurled like a hand grenade at those who question the manufactured consensus.

Here are just the first few scientists who are quoted in Steyn’s book:

PROFESSOR DARREL INCE, PHD Professor of Computing at the Open University’s Centre for Research in Computing in the United Kingdom. Author of peer-reviewed papers published by Empirical Software Engineering and other journals.

DR HENDRIK TENNEKES, PHD Former Director of Research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute and member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. Former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University, author of The Simple Science Of Flight From Insects To Jumbo Jets (MIT Press, 1997) and co-author of the classic A First Course In Turbulence (MIT Press, 1972).

DR MICHAEL R FOX, PHD (1936-2011) Nuclear scientist, Professor of Chemistry at Idaho State University and researcher at the National Engineering Laboratory. Chairman of the American Nuclear Society’s Public Information Committee.

DR HAMISH CAMPBELL, PHD Geologist and paleontologist with New Zealand’s Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS Science), and scientist in residence at Te Papa Tongarewa, the national museum of New Zealand. Former President of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Member of the Geological Society of New Zealand.

PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER, PHD Winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson, “for their discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in solids”. Professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and Professor Emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Recipient of the Oliver E Buckley Condensed Matter Prize from the American Physical Society and the Zworykin Award from the National Academy of Engineering. Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

And of course, Australia’s acclaimed geologist Ian Plimer, has written and spoken extensively about the ABSENCE of evidence against man made CO2 as the climate culprit.

We should never have to hear the word ‘consensus’ again. Or that ‘the scientists tell, us…’

This entry was posted in Democracy and global warming policies. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Clinging to the science that isn’t there

  1. Bobby Cox says:

    Great Article! Great website. So happy I found you! (via Gateway Pundit)
    “Clinging to Science that isn’t there”.
    And building a Coalition of
    “the 80 Million who aren’t there”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *