Three Reasons Obama Administration Almost Certainly Wrong on Climate Change

Eisenhower“Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”During the past several weeks, except for a sidetrack to rush an Iranian nuclear deal, Obama administration officials have continued to attack the thousands of honest, experienced scientists and engineers who remain unconvinced that human activities are responsible for catastrophic global climate change. There is no conclusive proof that people are causing such serious atmospheric arrhythmia.

Assaults on knowledgeable, but incredulous, professionals have come through recent sanctimonious statements from the Secretary of State John Kerry along with juvenile name-calling by other officials in authority–such as, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and the President himself–who should act with a bit more dignity, let alone intelligent circumspection.

Regardless, there are at least three big reasons why the Obama administration is almost certainly wrong about human culpability for catastrophic climate change.

1.  The “hypotheses” that humans are largely responsible for long-term, dire, global climate change, has so far been shown to be remarkably false.  Actual climate data suggest that the larger responsibility lies with nature itself.  Unfortunately, the hypothesis was declared a proven “theory” much too prematurely by some so-called self-identified “consensus.”  Apparently, the consensus was based on mere opinion, founded on faith among like-believers. After all, anthropogenic climate change has, to date, become an unsubstantiated prophesy.  Actual climate data for nearly two decades belie confident predictions of global warming from human “carbon pollution.”

2.  Money can’t ultimately buy the truth; but money can certainly distort the truth.  The U.S. Treasury has lots of cash to support research and programs that promote the man-is-the-enemy-of-climate hypothesis.  The saying, “You get what you pay for,” applies here.  Unfortunately, it’s the taxpayer who is footing the bill for political science masquerading as climate science.  The discovery of truth suffers from an influx of government cash essentially earmarked for finding a big human footprint stomped in the global atmosphere–in a sense providing kickbacks to supporters of “correct” climate programs.

3.  Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of political grandstanding of certainty in science is that the objectivity of science is destroyed by the subjectivity of arrogance.  Much worse than the obvious ruse, “Trust us, we’re politicians,” is the more subtle ploy, “Trust us, we’re scientists.”   President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation over 50 years ago contained a warning that bears repeating “[P]ublic policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

No one group of people, no matter how prescient they think they are, can trump the combined intelligence of the community at large.  In this case that community includes the multitude of reasonable skeptics in the atmospheric science and environmental engineering fields who question the “settled” dogma of human culpability to a troubled global atmosphere.

For example, a counter to the oft cited, but quite distorted claim that 97% of climate scientists are true believers in manmade global warming, a 2012 poll of the members of the American Meteorological Society revealed a great deal of skepticism among its membership.  Only about 53% of the respondents agreed with the assertion that people are primarily responsible for the recent global warming.   And, even for respondents assuming the existence of increasing average planetary temperature, less than 40% of such respondents claimed that the global warming will be “very harmful.”

But, regardless of the furor and fury from those in the bully pulpit who use unsettled science to advance political causes, humble open-mindedness and inclusivity may yet help solve some of today’s truly desperate environmental and societal challenges.

Anthony J. Sadar, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, is author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2014).  JoAnn Truchan, a Professional Engineer, specializes in chemical engineering and air-pollution control.


Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (3)

  • Avatar



    [quote]Only about 53% of the respondents agreed with the assertion that people are primarily responsible for the recent global warming.[/quote]

    Considering the political pressure on those folks’ careers, I would suspect the figure is closer to 40% (about the same percent who believe it to be harmful). There are many who cannot afford the backlash from the purely evil paid shills of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry, who like nothing better than to destroy careers of honest men and women. Men and women with families to support.

    I use a nom de plume to protect [i]my[/i] family. My brother works at NASA, and has had to testify before congress on more than one occasion, and my namesake nephew also works for Uncle Sam in DC.

    The administration is most definitely wrong, and along with the IPCC, they are responsible for millions of deaths each year because of their CAGW agenda.

  • Avatar



    “recent” global warming?

    Recent is last week, not 18 years ago.

  • Avatar



    Despite almost no death certificates citing global warming as the cause of death model predictions are frequently spit out by air quality regulators and so called climate scientists about deaths from any number of real pollutants .

    Yet fuel poverty and food shortage deaths caused by foolish and misguided global warming policies are never made public . Why is that ?

    So when Uncle Fred in the UK dies because he could no longer pay to heat his home as a result of aggressive utility cost increases to fight non existent global warming, the relatives should sue the government for fuel poverty murder .

    Completely avoidable homicide of innocent people does not get a free pass .

    Lawmakers cannot hide . They had the opportunity to hear all sides and they chose to shut down debate and informed discussion while introducing policies they had to have known would result in the premature deaths of thousands of people .

    A class action lawsuit of about $ 6 Billion per year should just about cover some of the cost for the over 3 million people who are known to be in fuel poverty right now in the UK . Government policy directed at fighting a non-existent problem leads to rapid increases in utility bills and thousands of deaths annually directly attributed to fuel poverty .

    If the estimated 3000 annual deaths in the UK caused from fuel poverty were actually deaths attributed to shootings or terrorists what would be the governments reaction ?

    Reverse the stupid ,naïve ,scary global warming policies and pay compensation to the peoples families who’s relatives died as a result of the foolish nonsense .

    When one party knows their actions can and will cause deaths and they continue to further those actions they are grossly negligent and the damages are grossly high .

    Mitigate the damages and put in a very big budget line item for the payment of damages to the relatives of people murdering due to misguided global warming policies .

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.