The Silence of the Scientists

earthInformed commentators are noticing that human-caused global warming is not the danger that it has been said to be, yet many inconsistently still call for “smart solutions” to address what is likely a non-issue.

Bjorn Lomborg, for example, argues that the overwrought pronouncements of climate doom that pervade the media are preventing the world from sinking ever more money into “green energy.”

For starters, we do not know with any confidence that dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions actually exists, and extra green energy cannot fix what is not broken.

It’s also confusing to conflate energy and environmental policy. Energy policy is concerned with diversity, security, and cheapness of supply; environmental policy with nurturing Earth’s natural environment.

If carbon emissions rise faster than anyone predicted, but the rise in global air temperatures is about 90 percent less than expected, and if we are told that we should be seeing more droughts whereas there is actually a decrease, then so-called “scientific’” forecasts about carbon dioxide emissions are woefully wrong.

How can we possibly trust them to make policy decisions?

Cautious scepticism is clearly appropriate when contemplating the myriad problems involved in estimating global air temperature by all of the main governmental agencies (NASA, NOAA, and the UK Meteorological Office).

And while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from about 360 to 400 parts per million over the last 18 years (i.e. by 10 percent, which in turn represents more than 30 percent of all human emissions since 1850), the global air temperature, more accurately measured by satellite sensors, shows no increase and certainly no sign of accelerating.

It remains true that carbon dioxide emissions provide the environmentally vital services of greening the planet and assuring our food supply.

What causes both the widespread alarmism and the public ignorance of the beneficial effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Scientists remaining silent.

Have you noticed that when a political figure makes an exaggerated statement about global warming, a commonplace occurrence, no government scientific agency or leading university scientist ever corrects them? Why not?

And then, discussing global warming as a “carbon” problem, as lobby groups and politicians do, represents scientific illiteracy because it fails to distinguish the element carbon from the molecule carbon dioxide. It also deliberately encourages the public to confuse a colourless, odourless, beneficial gas with soot.

The saddest part of today’s sorry state of climate research is that so many scientists choose to remain mute about these widespread abuses of scientific nomenclature and method. They fear intimidation.

For vicious despoilation of the reputation of non-conformist scientists has long been the leaf out of the Alinsky rule book enforced against any scientist who questions the global warming-carbon dioxide mantra.

Take the new paper, “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David R. Legates, and William M. Briggs, a study which highlighted the reasons for the unrealistic predictions of global warming models. The science of this paper has so far been ignored, but there immediately arose a call for the firing of one of the authors, the distinguished Dr Willie Soon.

All four of the authors of this paper have declared no conflict of interest; having neither sought nor received funding for conducting their research. Nonetheless, last weekend the New York Times, Guardian, and other progressive papers and blogs unleashed a fury of false accusations of conflict of interest against Dr. Soon — revealing thereby that they have no competence to judge the science involved, expert though they manifestly are at pillorying the man.

It is particularly notable that the editor of the Science Bulletin, the journal in which the Monckton et al. paper was published, has commented that the paper passed “our rigorous peer-review process.”

The three authors of this opinion article have also suffered repeatedly from similar attacks in the past. Like Dr. Soon, we have found the criticisms hard to rebut because of the overwhelming public influence, Megaphone media support, and political reach of the major environmental lobby groups.

In what has truly become an Age of Disenlightenment, a nexus of bloggers, environmental activists, politicians, journalists, and (most sadly of all) scientists have modified the famous phrase that Evelyn Hall used to summarise Voltaire’s attitude towards freedom of speech. The recast aphorism now reads: “I disapprove of what you say, and will pursue to the death every way of preventing you from expressing it.”

Such attacks on independent researchers, and the exaggeration or misrepresentation of climate research results that has become commonplace, are in fact an evil every bit as pernicious as direct scientific fraud.

Whatever their personal views, and whatever intimidation they may face, all independent scientists should feel beholden to find ways of publicly supporting the freedom of enquiry and discussion that is epitomized by the research of Dr. Willie Soon and other expert scientists who remain sceptical of environmental scares such as dangerous global warming.

Simply put, a technologically advanced, civilized society cannot survive unless public policies are formulated based not on spin, deceit, and untruthfulness but rather on the unemotional, logical, and balanced principles of intellectual enquiry developed during the Enlightenment.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Gerry

    |

    In better words….“The Silencing of the Scientists”

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    This excellent article exposes the truth about suffocation of free speech and open scientific discussion with respect to climate .

    The media, as corporations, are intimidated. Like a group of bullies it is far easier to join scary global warming promoters than take them on.
    They have bought in hook line and sinker to the Great Climate Con and many of them as promoters of the scam have no interest whatsoever in providing a balanced perspective .

    This may be one of the first major examples where the social media, as a means of free speech, puts the public
    ahead of the traditional media who for the most part are following orders from an Editor or their Board .

    Over 30,000 scientists spoke out expressing the view that the claims of scary global warming promoters were exaggerated and does not warrant $ Billions being wasted on a false premise.

    Other individual scientist have also expressed their view that there are problems with climate models that are now proven to be grossly inaccurate .

    No discernible warming in almost 20 years and many in the media keep promoting a giant fib. WHY ?

    The truth is most media talking heads probably didn’t get past Grade 10 biology and couldn’t tell the difference carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide .

    So it is just easier to report any scary global warming storey especially if it comes from a bought and paid for government agency towing the line .

    It is reassuring to know more scientific bodies are getting some backbone finally and not all media are intimidated from doing their job .

    I can’t imagine how taken to the cleaners the public would be if the social media didn’t allow for push back on one of the biggest frauds in decades .

    Faulty climate model projections ,overstated temperature data and outright lies placed in promotional movies and media . Yet they didn’t get away with it . Amazing …who ever invented the internet deserves a big hug .

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      So true Amber…
      And, the whole CO2 scam started before the internet, social media, blogging etc.,
      Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s when UN IPCC officials were asked if the science was true wrt global warming, they said;” It does not matter if the science is true, it only matters what people BELIEVE to be true.
      It has been a 100% political agenda from day1. aka: Agenda 21 [Google it]

  • Avatar

    Bill Vancouver

    |

    Our local paper, The Columbian, has an unbroken record of never publishing any scientific articles opposing CAGW. They did publish a side bar when Climategate broke. Their editor told me they only report local news and whatever their news services provide. Well which side of the fence does AP, Bloomberg, etc. occupy? So whatever happened to investigative reporting on issues that effect our economy and national interests. What this country really needs is more crony corruption…..then we can lead the world in establishing new records of national debt, which are now totally out of Congressional control.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Bill you are so right about the financial Titanic. That is why I find it much easier to
    consider the Great Climate Caper .
    Previously known by it’s stage name Global Warming.
    It is reassuring to know the famous forecasters of the earth has a fever made a few massive mistakes .

    No ice free Arctic this summer and the Polar
    Bears won’t drown while swimming to Halifax.

    But why is Greenpeace so sad ?

  • Avatar

    jim

    |

    The fact that climate scientists remain silent about these attacks tells us that all of them are willing to accept corruption.

    Even more telling was when the climategate emails showed corruption at the highest levels of climate science and the entire field kept quite.

    That tells us that the entire field is utterly lacking in scruples and complicit in the corruption by their silence.

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Yes, apparently there is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ alarmist. It’s all jihad, all day.

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    IF the political left was honest and fiscally competent, they would embrace and promote the Copenhagen Consensus. None of the causes listed in the Consensus are mutually exclusive, all of them could be pursued simultaneously. They are listed in order of “best bang for the buck”, most likely to succeed. The fact that Green efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are so expensive and ineffective rates their cause way down the list. So the Copenhagen Consensus gets the cold shoulder from the very people who pretend to have the world’s interest at heart. Condemnation by faint praise.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.