Silencing the Skeptics in the Global Warming Debate
The suppression of opposing viewpoints doesn't add credibility to an argument.

Global warming is currently such a fashionable political cause that the people who doubt its dire ramifications are being ostracized and squelched by environmental activists and their friends in the so-called news media.  But the global warming debate is still up for debate, because there are plenty of reasons to question the one-sided arguments coming from the political left and the rash presuppositions of environmental activists.


Global Warming Skepticism:  It is worth noting that anyone even remotely skeptical of the standard model of global warming faces an almost insurmountably quixotic task. The view that human industrial and other economic activity is filling the air with carbon dioxide and causing the planet's temperature to rise is taught to nearly all the nation's children and has been for years. It continues to be taught all the way through high school and into college. It is endlessly reported in the newspapers and on the evening news broadcasts. It is repeated on the Weather Channel and is the subject of frequent cable television specials and documentaries.

Greens are the enemies of liberty.  Imagine a society where simply speaking out of turn or saying the "wrong thing" was openly discussed as a crime against humanity, and where sceptics or deniers of the truth were publicly labelled "criminals", hauled before the press and accused of endangering humanity with their grotesque untruths.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn feeds the darkest temptation.  [Scroll down slowly]  Why is [Clive] Hamilton so strongly drawn to the global warming crusade?  Why is it so many former Marxists and almost everyone of the Left is so attracted to the cult of man-made warming, with its call to force us into eco-virtuous lives?  Why is it, say, that the former editor of the Communist Party of Australia's newspaper, NSW University's Associate Professor David McKnight, not only now preaches global warming, but demonises sceptical scientists as enemies of the revolution, likening them this week to Holocaust deniers and tobacco lobby shills, and suggesting they were so corrupt they'd been bought off by Big Oil?

Lonely voice of dissent declared valid.  There is something odd about the ferocious amount of energy expended suppressing any dissent from orthodoxy on climate change.  After all, the climate cataclysmists have won the war of public opinion — for now, at least — with polls, business, media and Government enthusiastically on board.  So, if their case is so good, why try so fervently to extinguish other points of view?  There is a disturbingly religious zeal in the attempts to silence critics and portray them as the moral equivalent of holocaust deniers.

Global warming hysteria:  how the pendulum has swung.  It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998.  This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.  The greenhouse hypothesis — which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming — is clearly invalidated by these data.  As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate rationalists (the so-called "sceptics") have always asserted.  Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change.

Confessions of a Global Warming Skeptic:  To me the global warming debate merits caution because (1) The debate feels more fanatical than other debates, say, about health care or the war in Iraq.  I sense some unconscious emotional forces at work, including an in-group mentality.  (2) There are likely hidden agendas.  What was once a scientific debate has migrated into the political realm, where stakes are high in research funding, corporate profits, political careers, and possibly even geopolitical strategy.

Skeptics Shed Needed Light on Truth.  When global warming alarmists condemn skeptics as "deniers," that is an unscientific and socially dangerous characterization.  Skeptics are not the enemy.  On the contrary, they are crucial to science because they help us search for truth.  Scientific theories exist to be verified or proven false.

No smoking hot spot.  I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office.  I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. … But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.  As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?"

Hansen Says GW Skeptics Should Be Tried.  NASA astronomer James Hansen, one of the most visible and vocal proponents of alarmist global warming theory, has called for criminal trials against scientists, corporate executives, and public policy advocates who disagree with him.

Climate mafia has us fooled.  Vested interests have hijacked the climate debate, and taken Australia's future hostage.  The ransom they demand?  Simple agreement or, at the very least, compliance.  Voices of dissent face derision.  Legitimate questions are met with ridicule.  But with many of the squabbling forces of power in this country now apparently united in their enthusiasm for an emissions trading scheme, it is more important than ever that we go back and examine the basis of their campaigns.

Some of the Many Experts  who contest Kyoto's scientific foundation.

Climate Skeptics Say Debate Stifled.  The head of the U.N. panel on climate change compared him to Hitler.  Another leading scientist called him a parasite.  A third described his latest book as a "stealth attack" on mankind.  The list of allegations against Bjoern Lomborg, one of the world's leading climate change skeptics, almost reads like an indictment for war crimes.

Global warming sceptics in an unholy row.  If you really want to know what it's like to be a 16th-century heretic, try saying you're a bit sceptical about man-made global warming.  Temperatures do seem to have gone up a little, even though environmentalists acknowledge that we might be in for a cool spell now. … Still, no one has convincingly proved that all this is definitely man's fault.  Try saying that in polite circles and it's like saying you're partial to roasted babies.

Science by intimidation:  Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological Armageddon.  Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time.  They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation; and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself.  They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming.

The Union of Concerned Scientists:  Its Jihad against Climate Skeptics.  Among the activist groups seeking to stifle dissent in the global warming debate, none has been more vocal — or more effective at attracting media attention — than the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).  But UCS is a master of political tactics, not an advocate for the scientific community.

Globe may be cooling on Global Warming.  Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23.  "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."  Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther.  He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.

Global warming 'consensus' a fiction.  Former Vice President Al Gore claimed there's no legitimate objection to the catastrophes he and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict.  All this received much media coverage and support from politicians and government bureaucrats, who stand to gain control if we heed their warnings.  The problem is, there's no scientific consensus for doomsday claims, let alone that drastic remedies are needed.  Growing numbers of global warming science skeptics are making their opposition known.  They include experts in climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, environmental sciences and physics, among others.

Yellow Science:  Over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

This article is much more interesting than the synopsis might lead you to believe.
 The American Physical Society and Global Warming.  [The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley writes,] "The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines."

Taking Out the Junk (Science):  When Al Gore and his global warming alarmists take over, one of the first citizens they'll slap in a prison and charge with crimes against the (green) state will be Steven J. Milloy, founder and publisher of the popular Web site JunkScience.com.  For 12 years, JunkScience.com has worked to debunk the bad science that has been used to advance the harmful or merely silly political and social agendas of environmentalists that have led to things such as bans on DDT and incandescent light bulbs.

'Algoreism' For the Masses.  Algoreism is based first and foremost of the principle of the Big Lie.  That is, if you tell a lie often enough, it transmogrifies into truth.  The bigger the lie, the better.  And to push the lie forward, you make every attempt to cut off reasonable debate.

TV's One-Sided Global Warming Nonsense:  Study says ABC, CBS and NBC never mentioned that thousands of scientists disagree with the doomsayers.

Global warming not settled; skeptical view should be heard.  This Earth has been warming up or cooling off through its entire history.  The idea that we can stop these cycles is ludicrous.  The global warming we have recently experienced is well within the norms we have experienced in recorded history.

Global warming on hiatus.  Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998, that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit.  These researchers aren't climate "deniers."  They say their findings — based on cutting-edge computer modelling techniques still in their infancy — are a refinement of existing climate models. … Prior to this study, anyone impertinent enough to point out, contrary to the Al Gore Nation, there hasn't been any global warming for a decade was apt to have their head shot off by climate hysterics.

Blessed are the sceptics.  In 1633 Galileo Galilei was hauled before the religious authorities of his day, the Inquisition, for daring to concur with Copernicus that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and also that it orbited the sun rather than the other way around.  For his pains, he was placed under house arrest and forced to recant. … Today we are faced with a newer religion known as environmental activism which has insinuated itself into some aspects of science.  It shares some of the intolerance to new or challenging ideas with the old.  Immolation at the stake is no longer fashionable but it has been replaced by pillory in the media.

The slick trick behind global frauding:  In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent.  He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil.  Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash.  And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation:  it's just a temporary glitch in the data.  Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050!  The excuses are endless.

Good science isn't about consensus.  If you listen hard to the global warming debate you will hear people at every level tell us that they don't want to hear any more talk, they want action.  I feel that the actions I have seen proposed, such as carbon caps and carbon trading, are likely to be unnecessary, expensive and futile unless there is much stronger evidence that we are facing a global environmental crisis, whether or not we have brought it about ourselves.

Academic cool on warming.  Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up". … He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".

Global Warming Doubters Strike Back.  Every few years, some group of scientists, egged on by the media, is persuaded to warn mankind of some new danger facing the human race.  This triggers the anxiety that always floats just below the conscious level in most people, and serves the purposes of the media by generating several months of gratifying headlines.  It also serves the purposes of the scientists, by giving them months of flattering publicity, not to mention the financial rewards that accompany scientific papers on the subject.  The excitement dies down in due course, but there is always some new peril being discovered.  Remember the ozone hole?  And whatever happened to acid rain?

NY Climate Conference:  Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity.  If you rely solely on the mainstream media to keep informed, you may not have heard that the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change concluded in New York City on Tuesday [3/4/2008].  And if you have heard anything — this being primarily a forum of skeptics — it was likely of a last gasp effort by "flat-Earthers" sponsored by right-wingers in the pockets of big-oil to breathe life into their dying warming denial agenda.  Well, having just returned from the 3 day event, I'm happy to report that the struggle against the ravages of warming alarmism is not only alive, but healthier than ever.

Opening Remarks at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.  The alarmists think it's a "paradox" that the more people learn about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem. … And incidentally, 70 percent of the public oppose raising gasoline prices by $1 to fight global warming, and 80 percent oppose a $2 per gallon tax increase, according to a 2007 poll by The New York Times and CBS News.  I've got news for them:  Reducing emissions by 60 to 80 percent, which is what the alarmists claim is necessary to "stop global warming," would cost a lot more than $1 a gallon.

Partial list of skeptical scientists  who are questioning the global warming hysteria.

The media snowjob on global warming:  [Scroll down] The bias is that whatever the IPCC and its defenders claim, the Washington Post and most other outlets report without scrutiny.  Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly suspected and derided.

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.  The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty.  The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.  The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence.  The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed 'unusual warming' based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph.  The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.

Global climate change has natural causes.  Over the past two decades the concepts of man-made global warming and man-made climate change have come to be accepted as reality.  It is repeated every day, in the papers, on TV, in schools and universities.  Many governments, and the United Nations, have declared their faith that Man is causing global climate change.  But is it true, or is it just another extraordinary popular delusion?

The Sloppy Science of Global Warming:  Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth — not one peer-reviewed paper.  The reason:  our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility.  For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness.  What might have caused such a change?  Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Not Worth The Paper It's Scribbled On.  The irony here is that global-warming alarmists are fond of using assertions about expertise and consensus as clubs to beat their critics over the head.  Unless you are an atmospheric scientist, you aren't supposed to express even an opinion about the assertions of, say, Al Gore or the filmmakers behind The Day After Tomorrow.  And when scientists do, indeed, step forward to question the supposed consensus about an impending global catastrophe, the alarmists attempt to assassinate their character or compare them to Flat-Earthers.  Only the minority of scientists who subscribe to the entire alarmist agenda are said to be credible.  They say this is science.  It is precisely the opposite of science.

Uncertain science dogs climate debate.  In an often bitter debate, sceptics argue the science on climate change is not settled.  Instead, they say international government climate change policies will cost billions to solve a problem that in all probability does not exist.

Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate.  Many people are starting to realize that much of what they've been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong.  Not surprisingly, the assertion that "the science is settled" in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism.  Alarmists respond by upping the ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming:  This booklet summarizes the results of international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. … More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided numerical answers each time the survey was conducted.  All responses were anonymous.

Saying "No" When Everyone Else Is Saying "Yes":  There is no dramatic warming of the earth.  There is no indication of a near-future warming.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the growth of forests, crops, and everything else that is truly green.  Indeed, climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, not precede, warming cycles.  They are not a trigger.  They are a response.

Physicist, global warming skeptic Frederick Seitz dies at 96.  Frederick Seitz, a former president of both the National Academy of Sciences and Rockefeller University and an outspoken skeptic on global warming, has died.  He was 96.

Global Warming Suit Infringes Free Speech.  A global warming lawsuit by Eskimos seeks to impose conspiracy liability on oil and power companies for giving money to groups that question the degree of humanity's role in global warming.

Meet The Global-Warming McCarthyites.  Newsweek magazine, which tells us in a recent edition about a "well-funded," global-warming "denial machine," is itself something of a trashing machine, a journalistic pretender that mistakes smear for substance. … The article not only fails to make so sweeping a case, but skips over a fact that the rawest newsroom rookie should have picked up — namely, that the Chicken Littles have outspent the cited think tanks and other groups in trying to inflict everyone with the willies, scientific exactitude be hanged.

GM Exec Stands by Calling Global Warming a 'Crock'.  General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.  Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

A Total Crock of Doo-Doo!  News coverage of Mr. Lutz's politically incorrect "crock-of-doo-doo" declaration caused me to wonder just how many American business executives harbor the same opinion about global warming, but are too cowardly to utter the words in public?  How many parrot the environmental slogans du jour and spout platitudes about corporate social responsibility because they would rather appease the activists than fight to protect their companies and shareholders from the scourge of eco-socialism?  I will be keen to watch these corporate Neville Chamberlains squirm when manmade global warming takes its place in the Guinness Book of World Records under the category "Biggest Fraud Perpetrated on Mankind."

The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism:  The sheer volume of articles, the vicious language and the retranslation of so many social and cultural trends — divorce, obesity, gender conflict and much else — into terms of carbon footprint suggests that something more fundamental is going on.  Most obviously, the extreme language — comparing academics who disagree about interpretation of data to Hitler or to Holocaust deniers — is indicative of a profound if subtle reframing of climate change.  One does not debate Hitler:  the use of such language indicates a shift from helping the public and policymakers understand a complex issue, to demonizing disagreement, especially regarding policies favored by the scientific community.

I was on the global warming gravy train.  I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry.  When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case.  I am now skeptical.

Over 31,000 U.S. Scientists Deny Man-Made Global Warming.  In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website. … Robinson's petition states a truth:  "There is no convincing evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."  What do these approx 32,000 scientists believe has caused the earth's warming since 1850 if it isn't CO2?  He points to the sun.  Robinson notes that over the past 150 years the sunspot index has predicted the Earth's temperature changes — with 79 percent accuracy — about ten years before they happen.  The sunspots actually predicted the 2007 global temperature decline; the index turned down in 2000.  The computer models didn't foresee it.

Chilling Effect:  You'd think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change.  But it's precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over.  One writer puts climate change skeptics "in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial," another envisions "war crimes trials" for the deniers.  And during the tour for his film "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore himself belittled "global warming deniers" as unworthy of any attention.

The Forces of Climate Sanity:  Unfortunately for the "debate is over" crowd, as more data arrives it continues to contradict everything they predict, and therefore the anti-free market policy proposals that they and their econo-moron political masters believe.  We should not forget that the global warming alarmist movement is in no small part simply another attack on first world economies brought to you by some of the same politicians and unions who tried and failed to destroy free trade in the past decade.

All those scientists may still be wrong.  To shut down debate is unscientific.  Science progresses by observation and deduction, by setting up hypotheses and testing them.  Allowing one view to be pushed forward with no dissent sets a precedent that will stifle innovative thinking.  Whatever Al Gore may believe, there is an even more inconvenient truth:  he could be wrong.

The Global-Warming Debate Isn't Over.  If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not.  And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination.

Skeptics Help Us Search for Truth.  When global warming alarmists condemn skeptics as deniers, it is an unscientific and socially dangerous characterization.  Skeptics are not the enemy.  On the contrary, they are crucial to science because they help us search for truth.  Scientific theories exist to be verified or proven false.  Thomas Huxley, a famous nineteenth-century English biologist, explained, "Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Plenty of scientific doubt about climate catastrophe.  I am a denier, a pejorative term applied to those of us who reject the now discredited report that 99 percent of climatologists agree that we are in a period of accelerated global warming, and that the debate is over.  I am in good company.  The deniers include those scientists who are directly involved in actual measurements of global temperatures, or those who base their positions on solid science, as opposed to those who base their opinion on computer modeling.

Science Organizations' 'Consensus' Statements Do Not Reflect Members' Views.  The American Geophysical Union, world's largest organization representing earth and space scientists, has issued a new statement on the causes and consequences of recent climate change and possible responses.  Similarly, in the past few years Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing a so-called consensus view that human activities are driving global warming.  What you don't hear is that these societies never allowed member scientists vote on these climate statements.  Essentially, in each case only two dozen or members on ad hoc committees and governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.

U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference.  The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia. … The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Spreads False Warming Stories.  University of Montana forestry professor Steven Running has interjected himself into the global warming debate by actively lobbying for expensive greenhouse gas restrictions and criticizing those who oppose his view.  In the October 25 Missoula Independent, Running labeled "ridiculous" those who have publicly corrected his many false and misleading statements about global warming.

Not So Hot.  If a scientific paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet.  But what would happen if a paper was published demonstrating that the planet may have warmed up only half as much as previously thought?  Nothing.

Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate.  Just days before former Vice President Al Gore's scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists [in March 2007] ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic.  During today's hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member.  The e-mail threatens to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.

Scientists Send Letter to UN:  Give Up Futile Climate Change Battle.  If a former vice president with absolutely no formal scientific training in climatology or meteorology makes a statement about the world coming to an end due to rising temperatures, media will fawn over him like teenyboppers in the presence of Elvis Presley.  Yet, if more than 100 scientists from around the world send a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations urging him and his organization to stop wasting time, resources, and money fighting a futile climate change battle, crickets will be heard in newsrooms around the country.

Media bias proves to be a Gray area.  It's not that [Dr. William] Gray is a media pariah.  His annual forecast on the number of hurricanes is dutifully reported and prominently displayed.  But when Gray talks about global warming — he's on the record as a strong skeptic of man-made global warming — the media barely notice.

When Political Correctness Becomes Conventional Wisdom:  Bill Gray has testified on global warming before Congress.  He has given speeches, written articles and done all he can think of to get his message out.  Yet, he has been ostracized by his colleagues, cut off from government funding and invested more than $100,000 of his own money to keep his research going — all because he contends that global warming is a fraud.  "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says.  "I've been in meteorology over 50 years.  I've worked [very] hard, and I've been around.  My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this.  It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing."

The climate models are worthless:  An interview with Dr. Vincent Gray.  Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports.  I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here's the exclusive interview.

Eye Of The Hurricane:  Colorado State University says it'll no longer promote the work of Dr. William Gray.  Is it really a cost-cutting move or are CSU and eco-fascists trying to silence the godfather of hurricane forecasting?  The university says its decision is based solely on the burdens of keeping up with media requests and inquiries about Gray's work that overwhelm a lone media staffer.  It says the decision has nothing to do with the fact that Gray, professor emeritus of CSU's atmospheric department, has been an effective voice offering inconvenient truths debunking Al Gore's climate disaster theories.

Colorado hurricane forecaster says global warming 'grossly exaggerated'.  The studies continue to mount:  Global warming is likely to blame for producing more powerful hurricanes and endangering the earth's ecosystems.  Nonsense, William Gray said Tuesday.  "There's been so much hype," the Colorado State University storm prognosticator said.  "But I don't think there's a real problem.  I think global warming has been grossly exaggerated."

Skeptical Scientists:  These are names of scientists who are question the global warming hysteria.

Meteorologist Documents Warming Bias in U.S. Temperature Stations.  New research suggests the temperature stations used to calculate statistics on temperatures in the United States are wrong and show more warming than has actually occurred. … Unfortunately, the scientists who compute the nation's average annual temperature seem to have little interest in obtaining accurate information.

Fall in weather deaths dents climate warnings.  Green scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers who found that the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is falling.  Their report suggests that a central plank in the global warming argument — that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather-related disasters — is undermined by the facts.  It shows deaths in such disasters peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since.

Baby, it's so cold outside.  Devastating man-made global warming is here, they insist, and causing terrible, terrible suffering.  They sound so very sure of it that you'd think they could pick, ooh, dozens of examples of this present cataclysm that are so obvious, so incontrovertible, that sceptics like me will slink back into our irresponsibly airconditioned homes, flushed from shame and an eerily hot sun.

Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths.  University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.



News and commentary about NASA's James Hansen

ABC Attacks NASA Skeptic with 'Incensed' Scientists.  Offer any skepticism of global warming and the media quickly line up experts to discredit you.  That's exactly what happened on "World News with Charles Gibson" on May 31.  Correspondent Bill Blakemore's report was about a "controversy" over recent skeptical remarks made on NPR by NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffin.

NASA Global Warming Soap Opera Takes Dramatic New Twist.  NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen … who has received a quarter of a million dollars in grant money from Teresa Heinz Kerry's left-wing Heinz Foundation, and thereafter publicly endorsed Heinz's husband John Kerry for president in 2004, has given more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews presenting a global warming alarmist point of view.

Alarmism Undermines Sound Policy.  The fact that the press has appointed Jim Hansen, whose opinion is anything but objective, the savior of civilization shows just how unscientific the global warming debate has become.

James Hansen:  Abusing the Public Trust.  Monday [6/23/2008], James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine.  Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity.  Their crime?  Spreading doubt about global warming.  Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty.  Guilty of abusing the public trust.

NASA warming scientist:  'This is the last chance'.  Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action. … Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

The Editor says...
 What a relief!  This means that in ten years, we can completely ignore every prediction Mr. Hansen makes, or has already made, because there will still be plenty of ice at the North Pole.

A Desperate Man.  In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory.  Is this where society is headed?  If so, we are headed for a dangerous place.  Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense. … Hansen's comment is revealing.  It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance.

The Editor says...
 Put me on trial, Mr. Hansen.  Where will this trial take place... in a NASA courtroom?  While I'm defending my skepticism, I think I can prove that NASA itself is a complete waste of money and should be scrapped.


Twisting Science to Fit the Global Warming Template:  The global warming crowd does not take kindly to being contradicted, either by critics or data.  Of course, critics can be defamed and data can be skewed.  But unless the critics can be silenced, they can fight back and expose phony data.  When it begins to look like predictions of doom are not turning out sufficiently catastrophic, a full Orwell is called for.  The media mobilize their templates to completely re-cast the information.

Climate hysteria now invading our homes and businesses.  In a public and government relations coup of unprecedented proportions, governments world-wide have been frightened into bowing before "so-called" romantic environmentalists, a well-funded but misguided movement that has thoroughly distorted the public policy debate.  Anyone who questions their dogma is to be silenced, shunned and disgraced.

Global warming:  the bogus religion of our age.  Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.  That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming.  Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt. … [Environmentalism] is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.

A Denier's Confession:  Global warming is more alarmist than alarming.  I confess:  I am prepared to acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks in some part to an increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.  I acknowledge this in the same way I'm confident that the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers:  not because I've measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the methods of the scientific community, above all its reputation for transparency and open-mindedness.

They call this a consensus?  More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers.  When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet.  I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. … My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard.  To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments.

BusinessWeek Credits 'Savvier Media' With Silencing Warming Opposition.  The media is actively silencing critics it disagrees with.

Attacking the Messenger:  The Left Unhinged by The Fox News Channel.  The most recent tactic used against the number one cable news channel, Fox News, has been a campaign by activist and filmmaker Robert Greenwald.  Through the website, www.foxattacks.com, Greenwald is going after advertisers, like Home Depot to get them to pull their ad dollars from The Fox News Channel because they dare to present an opposing view regarding the role of humans in global warming. … Their testiness is especially evident after the "Live Earth" debacle.  They are scrambling to regain some sense of decorum on the discussion of Global Warming.

Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate.  Tonight's airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on [Australian] TV should be a hoot. … Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster.  There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators.

Update:
 Up against the warming zealots.  When I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head.  So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on [Australian] ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack.  I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.  The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired.

Climate film hits back at Gore.  From the moment it hit the airwaves on a British television station on March 8, The Great Global Warming Swindle has generated both praise and outrage because of its theory that scientists, politicians and the media have conspired to scare people into believing that humans are causing climate change.

Censoring Global Warming Skeptics.  Bob Ward, John Houghton, Myles Allen and the others who advocate censoring scientific opinion should reconsider the meaning of the statement Allen made in this piece:  "Science is about the arguments."  Precisely.  And you can't have arguments if one side can keep the other from speaking.

Chilling Intolerance for Free Speech on Global Warming.  The debate is now over, according to the world's top science experts, Al Gore and Britain's environmental minister.  Those who question if that's a fact are no longer simply nay-sayers or skeptics.  They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals.  Worse than the name-calling, environmentalists, the media, and even scientists are attempting to stifle other scientists with differing opinions on climate change.

Turning up the Heat on Gore.  Global warming is what William James called a "moral equivalent of war" that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis. … This explains Gore's relentless talk of "consensus," his ugly moral bullying of "deniers" and, most of all, his insistence that because there's no time left to argue, everyone should do what he says.  Isn't it interesting how the same people who think "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" when it comes to the war think that dissent when it comes to global warming is evil and troglodytic?

Inside the Church of Global Warming:  When ex-vice president Al Gore started saying, in a time of war, that global warming was a more important issue for us all to focus upon than international terrorism, I placed even more focus on the issue.  With the help of the scientific community, those who have reservations on the magnitude of reported man made global warming, I wrote two compelling articles meant to spark further debate on where we should prioritize this issue when the nation is at war.  I was literally assailed by the fanatics of the global warming community.

The Great Global Warming Swindle:  A juicy new documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has just been broadcast [3/8/2007] on the UK's Channel 4.  Based on the thesis presented in the book The Chilling Star by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, the documentary claims that humans have absolutely no control over Global Warming and that all the hype about it is simply propoganda inspired by the huge amounts of money given to what's become a popular cause.

The Left-Wing Echo Chamber.  Death threats.  Harassing phone calls.  Threatening e-mails.  Such was a day in the life of Drew Johnson a few weeks ago.  His crime?  Johnson is president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a free-market think tank that broke one of the juiciest stories of 2007. … Unfortunately for Johnson, it meant enduring days of attacks from liberals — even though the facts of the story came directly from public records.

Just the facts.  The chorus of cheers that on Feb. 2 greeted the release of a summary of findings by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is only the latest example of a hardening political consensus around a subject on which there is still scientific debate.  What has happened is that climate change and the human role therein have now become a kind of orthodoxy that you question at your peril if you are a scientist or a politician.

A Cool Look at Global Warming:  The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism.  It is a great story, and a phenomenal best seller.  It contains a grain of truth — and a mountain of nonsense.  And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.  We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.  It is from this, above all, that we really do need to save the planet.

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming -- Now Skeptics.  Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science.  Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included [in this article] are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Gore fans abuse, threaten Gore foes.  Gore's defenders also spewed venomous e-mails.  They sent the [Tennessee Center for Policy Research] nearly 3,000 Gore-related messages that exhibited the very bigotry the Left routinely denounces.  These offensive, often-vulgar, and occasionally unschooled comments reveal the vitriol behind much of today's "progressive" rhetoric. … Such anti-intellectual intimidation reflects the high-octane hate that fuels so much Leftist discourse. … Remember this whenever liberals crow about diversity, tolerance, and open-mindedness.

'Dissent' Authors Oppose Dissent.  The Boykoff brothers urge that it's unethical to allow experts skeptical of global warming into news stories.  But when you turn to Jules Boykoff's college biography page, you discover that much of his writing is devoted to protesting the "suppression of dissent" in America, including by ... the mass media.

Now it's really getting ugly.
 Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'.  Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.  They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.  Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

In age of reason, the brouhaha over global warming can leave you cold.  History shows that scientists are not always right.  Sometimes they get caught up in the non-scientific enthusiasms of their time.  History also shows that one of those enthusiasms, which crops up constantly, is a desire to believe in the approach of some kind of apocalypse.  Of course, I have no way of knowing if the carbon crusade is a case in point.  But it shares some of the characteristics of previous apocalyptic movements, which provides grounds for cool scepticism.

True Lies, The Sequel:  Five Western governors have joined forces to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.  But all they'll be limiting will be the economies of their states and the free speech of skeptics. … The silencing of skeptics of global warming's imminent danger, the extent of human causation, and the cost-effectiveness of things like Kyoto, is apparently part of the initiative.

Taking a closer look at Al Gore's truth:  When you compound the probabilities, the claims of environmentalists such as Gore begin to look less and less certain.  In fact, in their unwillingness to brook dissent or countervailing theories, they seem less like scientists and more like the fundamentalists they otherwise scorn.

Gore under the spotlight.  Gore and his friends oddly insist the debate is over and consensus has been reached on the subject.  The striking fact we find in exploring the subject is, however, the extent of disagreement among scientists on the question of human agency in climate change.  Gore might wrap himself in the mantle of science, but he is not a scientist.  He belongs to a class of people — politicians — least trusted by the public.

Gore on the Rocks.  A backlash in the scientific community has begun. Last week, New York Times veteran science reporter William Broad filed a devastating article about scientists who are "alarmed" at Gore's alarmism; Gore's account of global warming goes far beyond the evidence.  The dissents from Gore's extremism, Broad explained, "come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists" who have "no political ax to grind."

Is there global warming 'truth'?  There is little disagreement in the media that Al Gore is greatly responsible for bringing the subject of man-made global warming into the public glare. ... Science and politics have co-existed in an uneasy relationship for a very long time.  The reason is simple.  In science "truth" is meant to be independent of human preferences and its discovery occurs through the scientific method of conjectures and refutations.

Climate change, Gore and Hitler.  Scientists are part of the consensus if they find that human-induced global warming is just as bad as others say it is, or if it is a bigger problem than others say it is.  But if they find that is not such a serious problem, they're no longer part of the consensus.  They're denialists.  Millionaire businessman Richard Branson is allowed to offer $25 million for research on carbon emissions but if the American Enterprise Institute pays scientists $10,000 to examine a recent UN report, that's bribery and corruption.

Liberals:  A very modest proposal.  As Michael Crichton pointed out, when folks start talking about consensus among scientists, they're talking politics, not science.  Nobody goes around claiming there's a consensus of experts when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics or asks the U.N. to decide if there's any validity to DNA.  Only with global warming are we supposed to put it to a vote, and then abide by the results of a fixed election.

On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial:  In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote:  "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers ..." This is worthy of some analysis. ... The Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

What Explains the Increasing Fury of Global Warming Alarmists?  What's behind the shameless demagoguery and character assassination being heaped on climate change "deniers"?  What's behind the chilling calls for "Nuremberg trials" for dissenting scientists?  Why has the Green rhetoric escalated to lynch-mob proportions?

Global warmers getting desperate.  The perpetration of a hoax follows a fairly well-established pattern.  First, the initial propaganda stage.  As skepticism increases to the point the hoax may be foiled, desperation sets in.  The second stage begins by attacking the skeptics.  America is entering the second stage, and it's not very pretty.

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming — Now a Skeptic.  His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Global Warming Skeptics Shunned.  The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.  A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.

Senator Sees Momentum Shifting Toward Global Warming Skepticism.  Politicians who build campaigns around "alarmist" global warming claims are themselves becoming quite alarmed because of growing skepticism, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. … "Politicians who are using this to run for office are panicking because the scientists have totally reversed themselves on this issue," he asserted.

Global Warming Consensus:  Folks Who Believe There is One Can't Tell You What It Is.  If "the consensus" truly is an established fact, why is it referred to as "a consensus"? … The supposed consensus itself is a mass of contradictory opinions, a fact which says clearly to anyone with open ears that the science isn't settled on global warming.

Consensus is Nonsensus in Scientific Matters.  The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter.  In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with political actions.  In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong.  Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science.

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'.  Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.  "In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.

Exposing the real climate 'deniers'.  Today, let's attack the real global warming "deniers."  The affluent, First World, Kyoto crackheads, who condemn anyone who questions their hysterical "apocalypse now" rhetoric as being no better than a Holocaust denier.  Their rhetoric is morally repugnant and disgusting.  Plus, they're fools.  They carry on as if coal, oil and natural gas are evil, instead of being a product of the natural world that has enabled civilization to flourish and saved more lives than any of them ever will.

Global Warming:  The Cold, Hard Facts?  Why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens?  Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?  Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.  We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

Global Hot Air:  The political Left's favorite argument is that there is no argument.  Their current crusade is to turn "global warming" into one of those things that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with "diversity" and "open space."  The name of "science" is invoked by the Left today, as it has been for more than two centuries.  After all, Karl Marx's ideology was called "scientific socialism" in the 19th century.  In the 18th century, Condorcet analogized his blueprint for a better society to engineering, and social engineering has been the agenda ever since.

The Emperor's New Climate:  Is Global Warming Real?  Everyone knows that the planet Earth is heating up disastrously.  Everyone.  If you listen to the news at all, you know that the 1990s was the hottest decade in 1,000 years.

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

— Phil Jones in a reply to climate skeptic Warwick Hughes *    

The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus:  [There is] a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences.  ...Some of the reasons for this instability are:  the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition.  It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger.

Global warming pipedream:  A few years ago, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit said those skeptical of the global-warming doomsdayers are "un-American" and part of a "conspiracy."  Yesterday [1/15/2004], former Vice President Al Gore, speaking in New York amid record-low temperatures, blasted President Bush as a "moral coward" for not taking a more active stand against the imaginary global-warming scenario.

MIT's inconvenient scientist.  Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated [Stephen] Schneider's directive.  There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once.  Again, the same message:  If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them.  They are simply untrue.  I ask you:  Are these convincing arguments?

Fact sheet on Global Warming:  There is less consensus about climate change within the scientific community than reported.  Some scientists believe temperatures are warming and human action is the dominant cause.  Others will accept data that seems to indicate warming but attribute this to solar phenomena or natural cycles.  Still others challenge the tools and methods of data gathering that are the foundation for claims of warming.  Indeed, even the basic measurement of today's temperature can vary widely when measured from the ground and from satellite.

Global warming:  a few skeptics still ask why it's happening.  Amid mounting evidence that temperatures are rising on planet Earth, the "skeptics" and "agnostics" are a smaller band than they used to be.  Yet those who do still harbor doubts about a looming global-warming crisis are quietly continuing to test alternative ideas about how climate works and what, if not the burning of fossil fuels, might be causing the temperature creep.

Climate of Fear:  Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.  Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes.  Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes?  And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

Global warming skeptic is simply man of reason.  Unfortunately, life is more about circles and cycles than straight lines.  Global warming is taking on the aspect of a religious belief rather than science.  No matter what happens — hot or cold, wet or dry — it's blamed on global warming.  And, like the Darwinians, the global-warming folks treat dissenters as if they were evil heretics.

Global Warming is More Scare than Science.  On June 13 [2005], USA Today declared that "The debate's over:  Globe is Warming."  That's another headline you can ignore.  The world has been warming ever since the last Ice Age, but it is not rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in a way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on their use of energy to avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the Greens have been peddling since the 1980's.

"Warming" is still up for debate.  So, "the debate is over."  Time magazine says so.  Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried.  Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories.  So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC.  And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.

"I don't like the word 'Balance'" — Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter.  ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore declared "I don't like the word 'balance' much at all" in global warming coverage at a journalism conference in Vermont over the weekend.  Blakemore, who reported on August 30, 2006, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming, said he rejects 'balance' in order to justify excluding any skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming from his reporting.  He made his remarks at Friday's panel discussion at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Burlington.

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent.  "Global Warming" had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world.  Michael Crichton, in his novel "State of Fear," brilliantly juxtaposes the world's current political embrace of "global warming" with the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century ago.  For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the "science" of eugenics was settled science.  There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.

Book review
 Hot Talk, Cold Science:  Global Warming's Unfinished Debate.  S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. … Singer's masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis.  In fact, he finds that many aspects of any global warming, such as a longer growing season for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would actually have a positive impact on the human race.  Further, Singer notes how many proposed "solutions" to the global warming "crisis" (like "carbon" taxes) would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations.

Geoff Metcalf interviews renowned atmospheric scientist, Dr. S. Fred Singer.  Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director of the National Weather Satellite Center and renowned atmospheric scientist from George Mason University, says concerns about "global warming" — most prominently emanating from presidential hopeful Al Gore — may be a lot of hot air.

Global hot air, Part II:  Propaganda campaigns often acquire a life of their own.  Politicians who have hitched their wagons to the star of "global warming" cannot admit any doubts on their part, or permit any doubts by others from becoming part of a public debate.  Neither can environmental crusaders, whose whole sense of themselves as saviors of the planet is at stake, as they try to stamp out any views to the contrary.

Global hot air, Part III:  If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves.  The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs.  Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.

True believers preach global warming with alarming zeal.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policy-makers has stated there is 90 percent certainty that there is an anthropogenic component.  Sounds good, but that is nowhere near certain in scientific terms.

"Studies prove...".  Climate expert Richard S. Lindzen of M.I.T. has indicated that the vast amount of government research money available for studies of "global warming" can discourage skeptics from being vocal about their skepticism.  This is not peculiar to studies of "global warming."  Many people who complain about the corrupting influence of money never seem to apply that to government money.

Global Warming Gag Order.  Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can't quite believe an October 27 letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.  Its message:  Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else. … Its essential point is that the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop and ExxonMobil should "end its dangerous support of the [global warming] 'deniers.'"

Activists Trying to Shut Down Climate Debate, Skeptics Say.  Climate change skeptics — and journalists who report on them — have become the target of a campaign aimed at stifling legitimate debate at a time when Congress is planning an aggressive new environmental push.  This is the assessment of environmental scientists and free market advocates who see a concerted effort to silence and de-fund think tanks that publish material challenging "prevailing global warming orthodoxy."

The Global Warming Inquisition and the Suppression of 'Skeptic' Heresy.  Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think independent thoughts or take independent actions.  Only pre-approved human response would be acceptable.  To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally to ones destruction.  That's the kind of world apparently desired by the global warming Chicken Littles.  It seems they are prepared to do anything to achieve it.  Case in point is an outrageous letter to ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson on October 27, 2006.  The letter was sent by two United States Senators, Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

The evolution of warming.  You remember evolution, right?  That's one of those great unchallengeable orthodoxies of our era — an orthodoxy that is about to run head-first into another supposedly unchallengeable orthodoxy, climate change.  Because, I would assume, to believe that millions of types of fish, butterflies, rodents, polar bears and a myriad of other species will be completely and utterly wiped off the face of the Earth by global warming is to also believe that these animals are creatures entirely without the ability to adapt or evolve.

A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism:  Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming.  Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate.  Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a bit hysterical.  Consider the first paragraph of the first section on the movie's website:
Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.  If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that even most believers in the global warming theory would call this misleading at best.  "The vast majority of the world's scientists" don't even work on climate.  Among those scientists who do, "the vast majority" DO NOT claim "we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe."

The item above was borrowed from my page of Environmental Propaganda Movie Reviews.

What's so hot about fickle science?  Alas, the science isn't so solid.  In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice age.  Then it switched to global warming.  Now it prefers "climate change."  If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change."  If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change."  If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.

Chill out over global warming.  You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.  Why not give it a whirl?  Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Ignore scientists that cast doubt on global warming: Broadcaster David Suzuki.  A media darling -- especially to the publicly funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) who pays his salary -- Suzuki's advice to journalists is specific:  They should ignore scientists that cast doubt on global warming, since they don't represent a consensus within the scientific community.

[If you intentionally ignore evidence and opposing viewpoints, then you are engaged in something other than science.]

Climate of Fear:  How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes?  And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?  The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism.  Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes.  After all, who puts money into science — whether for AIDS, or space, or climate — where there is nothing really alarming?

Storm Hits Weather Community Over Climate Expert's Global Warming Claims.  The Weather Channel is standing by a climatologist who is taking some heat after blogging that TV weather forecasters skeptical about man-made global warming theories should lose their professional certification.  Climate expert Heidi Cullen defended herself last week in The Weather Channel's One Degree Climate Change blog after questioning the fitness of meteorologists who disagree with her conclusions.

More Hot Air on Global Warming.  Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."  Apparently the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen believes "If you don't agree with me, you should be silenced, censured, and ostracized."  The central point to all this brouhaha is the debate over global warming.  And there in is the essence of the problem.  It remains a debate.

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics.  The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.

Weather Channel Host Shows Climate Alarmists' Ugly Side.  Heidi Cullen, a Weather Channel meteorologist who hosts the station's alarmist weekly program The Climate Code, created a media stir on January 18 by calling on the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to decertify meteorologists who disagree with her alarmist global warming views.

Let the great debate on climate continue.  It is profoundly unscientific to say the debate is over and that sceptics are not only wrong on the facts but morally unhinged — as demonstrated by the unsubtle and offensive epithet "denier".  It was scepticism that led Copernicus to challenge contemporary orthodoxy and assert that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.  Today's scepticism could well prove that man-made carbon emissions are not the sole, or even primary, driver of climate change — a conclusion radically unsettling to those who believe that humanity is a destroyer rather than an improver of the Earth.

Science, Politics and Death:  The enemies of humanity ... want to move technology another step downward and energy production another step backward by diminishing even the use of hydrocarbon energy.  To accomplish this, they have contrived three lies.  These are the lies of hydrocarbon shortages, human-caused global cooling, and human-caused global warming.  Their allies in the press, government, foundations and business have heavily promoted these lies over the past several decades.

Global Warming:  Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame.  Did human industrial output somehow increase 55 percent during those two years, and then decline by that amount in 2004?  Of course not.  For the record, NOAA concluded that the fluctuation was caused by the natural processes that contribute and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  Al Gore would be hard-pressed to explain NOAA's findings within the context of his apocalyptic thesis, and he would be hard-pressed to convince any serious scientists that his Orwellian solutions could correct such fluctuations.  This is because his thesis is based largely on convenient half-truths.

Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting.  Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.  D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.  Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers.  They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.

Convenient Fiction?  Documentary Plans to Challenge Gore.  A critic of "global warming alarmism" began filming a documentary Thursday [12/14/2006] that seeks to rebut some of the claims former Vice President Al Gore made in his popular movie, "An Inconvenient Truth."

A genuine threat or a political bandwagon?  Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said:  "We are being led to believe that there is a scientific consensus that global warming exists when, in fact, the science used to support the theory stresses uncertainty at best.  "In the 1970s, there was a serious debate about whether we were entering a new Ice Age and the cause back then was based on emissions.  Now, those same emissions are allegedly the cause of global warming.

Please, Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way.  I find myself continually annoyed at the absolute certitude cultural elites have toward global warming and man's causation.  In almost every media presentation dealing with the issue all questions are banished, and to question the "consensus" is tantamount to heresy.  Why just the other day on NPR I heard a reporter/prosecutor sound amazed that the Bush administration ever had the temerity to question the science behind global warming.

Why liberals fear global warming far more than conservatives do.  The usual liberal responses — to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like — obviously don't apply here.  So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation:  "big business."

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world.  Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.  The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists.  A team of international scientists [in May 2002] said climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.  The scientists met on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about global warming.

Global warming is still a fear, not a fact.  Every flood, drought or cyclone is seen through the prism of the continuing debate about global warming.  And there are those prepared to play on people's fears with exaggerated and simplistic claims that demean the debate and the depth of scientific inquiry that is being conducted on the issue.  Tim Flannery's article in Tuesday's Age provided a good example of this.  To take just one point, it is nonsense to suggest, as Flannery did, that the present drought is the worst in 1000 years.  Whenever someone claims that a weather event is the worst since records began, it is important to remember that reliable climate records only go back for a century at best.

The Latest Global Warming Claims Are Flawed and Inflated.  The release of five gloom-and-doom articles on global warming and climate change, timed just as the Democratic Party was settling on a nominee, was no accident.  Nor was it surprising that those articles should contain major flaws, inflated claims, and sweeping generalizations.  But what remains unanswered is how this stuff continues to make it through the scientific review process and editorial boards of major newspapers and magazines.

The Sky Is Falling! Or Is It?  Modern-day Chicken Littles would like you to believe that the sky is falling — or, more precisely, that the atmosphere is dangerously overheating.  But they are wrong.


Back to the The Global Warming Page
Jump to the Kyoto Protocol
Jump to the Environmental Issues Page
Back to the Home page

Custom counter developed in-house

Document location http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html
Updated August 17, 2008.

 Page design by Andrew K. Dart  ©2008