Climate Change: Settled Science

climate change North Africa
Figure 1.--

We are told repeatedly by the mainstream media, Presidebnt Obama, forner Vice-President Gore, and other lberal politicans like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the science on climate change has definitely been decided. We have been told that the reputable scientists agree with the alarmist prediction of an impending global disaster. This is, however, simply not true. There are many important, respected scientists who question many aspects of the science behind the climate alarmists. In America alone 31,000 scientists signed a public statement rejecting the warming hypothesis--the Oregon Petition. Respected scientists argue that the alarmists forecasts are derived from faulty scientific procedures. The Wharton School published a peer review paper finding that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasting procedures violated 72 of 89 relevant principles. [Armstrong] Even worse, there are incidents of the climate alarmists seeking to silence those that discent from the trendy alarmist view. Nothing of course could be further from the principles of science. Some scientists campare the climate change alarminsts to the infamous Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) who set back Soviet science, especially biology, a generation. It is instructive to see how the climate alarmits treat the data. Some are alarmed that the data, especially recent data, does not support the alarmist view. Real scientists do not cheer for the data to meet popular assumtions, instead they follow the data whereever it might lead. And even worse, some scientists have even falsified data so that it supports alarmist models.

Claims of Settled Science

We are told repeatedly by the mainstream media, Presidebnt Obama, forner Vice-President Gore, and other lberal politicans like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the science on climate change has definitely been decided. We have been told that the reputable scientists agree with the alarmist prediction of an impending global disaster. This is, however, simply not true. A destinguished groupn of scientists and tecnicians write, " ... the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact a large an growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions are needed." [Allegre et. al.] Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, supported President Obama in 2008. He resigned from the American Physical Socity (APS), writing "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruotiins in the Earth;s physical and cological 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 th mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" [Giaever] The group of destinguished scientists abd technicuans write, ""In spite of a multidcade internatiinal campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the 'pollutant' carbon dioxide will destoy civilization, large numbrs of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each pssing year. The reason is a collection of tubborn scientific facts." [Allegre et. al.]

Climate Change Dissenters

There are many important, respected scientists who question many aspects of the sciebce behind the climatic alarmists. In America alone 31,000 scientists signed a public statemebnt rejecting the warming hypothesis--the Oregon Petition.

Faulty Science

Respected scientists argue that the alarmists forecasts are derived from faulty scientific procedures. The Wharton School published a peer review paper finding that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasting procedures violated 72 of 89 relevant principles. [Armstrong]

Supressing Dissent

Even worse, there are incidents of the climate alarmists seeking to silence those that discent from the trendy alarmist view. Nothing of course could be further from the principles of science. Some scientists campare the climate change alarminsts to the infamous Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) who set back Soviet science, especially biology, a generation. This is perhaps the most unseely attribute of the Climate Change proponents. Many seek to portray disentrs as ignorant if no imoral. There are efforts to bully dissenters or even those who attemp to keep an open mind. Dissenting can damage if not destroy careers. This is par for the course in politics, but should not be the case in scientific unquiry. Have the president of the United States say that global warming/climate change is settled science cetainly does not encourage discent if nothing else because it can affect grant money.

Inconvenient Data

One of the increasing problems faciung the climate alarmists is that the data compiled in recentv years does not support the alarmist projectuions of their models. The group of destinguished scientists and techniciuans writes, "Perhaps the most inconvient fact is the lack of global warming well over 10 years now." [Allegre et. al.] The warming that the climate change alarmists 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 Intrgovernmebtal Panel on on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectiins-suggests that computer models have greatky exagerated how much warming additiinal CO2 can cause. Faced withbthis embarassment, those promoting alarmhave shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2." [Allegre et. al.]

Data Treatment

It is instructive to see how the climate alarmits treat the data. Some are alarmed that the data, especially recent data, does not support the alarmist view. The fact that the data being collected does not support the alarmist models is well known to the warming establishment. An rather than questioning theie models, many od the alarmist instead express increudulity and alarm about the consequences to the climate change establishment. An example is the 2009 'Climategate' email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the momennt and it is a travesty that we can't.' Real scientists do not cheer for the data to meet popular assumtions. This is instead how political campaigners think or in past years religious zealots. Real scientists instead follow the data where ever it might lead.

Data Falsification

And even worse, some scientists have even falsified data so that it supports alarmist models.

Discenters

The Global Warming proponents like Al Gore insisted that Global Warming is settled sience. President Obama and the Democratic Party establishment also insisted it was settled science. Whgen the warming data the 'inconvemnient truth crows' suddenly saw a need for a name cahnge so Global Warming became Climate Change. Now the issue of climate change is certainly debateable. And there are some clear changes going on such as the loss of glasiers and Arctic warming, it is vert clear that Climate Change is not settled science. The most serious unansweed question is waht is causing the changes underway and as a result what to do about it. All of this can be deabated. What can not be rationally debated is that it iscsettled science. And here the Global Warming proponents have begun to crack. They now admit, at least the honest ones, that there are established scientists who question the Global Warming mantra. Theeir line is now that the vast majority of scientists endorse Global Warming. It is ceratainly the case that a majority of scientisrs do support the idea of Climate Change, although pliticans like Gore and Obama commonly stack the list with politically certified scientists. The portion thus depends on who is preparing the list. We are thus not sure if the proportioin is as large as the propoents say. Needless to say science is not a matter amenable to majority vote or relgious and governmental fiat. It is thus important to note the list of doubters. Note that doubters does not necsarily include deniers, but those who doubt major aspects of the all too often politically correct Global Warming proponents

Sources

"No need to panic about global warming," The Wall Street Journal (January 27, 2012), p. A15. Note not only the eminent credentials of these scientists and tecnicians, but the many different countries from which they come.

Armstrong, J, Scott. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, "Let's deal in science and facts," Wall Street Journal (November 19, 2010), p. A18.

Giaver, Ivar. Letter to the American Physical Socity, September 2011.

Trenberth, Kevin. Climatategate Email (2009).








HBC








Navigate the Children in History Web Site:
[Return to the Main climate change page]
[Return to the Main climate page]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class] [Royalty]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]





Created: 6:27 PM 2/9/2012
Last updated: 12:09 AM 3/14/2014