Wall Street Opinion Journal Richard Lindzen April 12, 2006
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
There have been repeated claims that this past year’s hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. 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?
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? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
. . . more
I find it applalling that ridiculous articles like this continue to be published when global warming is, in fact, settled science. What’s next – articles challenging Newton’s theory of gravity, or Copernicus”s theory of a Heliocentric solar system?
Evidence of global warming is all around us, from melting polar icecaps, and disappearing glaciers to the shifting habitats of many species of fish and animals. The US government’s top scientists, like James Hansen of NASA, have confirmed that global warming is underway, and that it is the direct result of man-made emissions concentating in the atmosphere.
The only scientists who continue to challenge global warming are those working for energy companies or foundations funded by energy companies. These academic prostitutes, whose “research” has never withstood scientific scrutiny, deserve to be shunned. The oil, gas and coal companies, who are currently reaping windfall profits, have a vested interest in sowing confusion and doubt abbout global warming and delaying the transition to more cleaner forms of energy as long as possible.
We can certainly debate alternative solutions to reduce emissions and mitigate global warming. As Missourian has pointed out, new technologies to reduce emissions from coal fired plants suggest that we need not do away with coal as an energy source. Natural gas has a role to play in fuel cell technology for automobiles.
But continuing to deny the obvious while refusing to implement prudent changes to the way we use energy only hastens the inevitable outbreak of environmental disasters which will wreak terrible damage on our planet and seriously harm human beings every where.
The Carter article in #2 is junk. Look at a graph of global temperatures such as the one at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html
There is a broad upward trend with occasional spikes in individual years. A particularly large upward spike occurred in 1998. When you are trying to extract a trend from data you don’t choose an obvious outlier point to start from. That is just what Carter does by choosing 1998 as his starting point for claiming warming has “stopped”.
Matthias you missed the point of his article. There is no universal consensus on global warming. And because of environmental alarmists crying “the sky is falling” bad policies have been pursued. As Carter states for the British Government:
I would much rather see sound science presented than neo-pagan environmental concerns dominate environmental sciences (for example Dean’s regurgitation of their propaganda).
Is there “universal consensus” on anything in science? If the existence of one dissenter on a subject proves the lack of universal consensus then there’s precious little of it.
I too “would much rather see sound science presented than neo-pagan environmental concerns dominate environmental sciences.” I would also rather see sound science instead of hysterical anti-environmental propaganda motivated by fear of neo-paganism dominate environmental sciences.
Matthias there are a number of dissenters. Do some reading in climatology studies.
Note 5, Matthias, there exist universal scientific consensus (plural?)
I am an applied physicist by training, an electrical engineer. There exists universal scientific consensus on many, many scientific premises. How many would you like me to list in physics for starters?
Note 5, Matthias, comments on global warming from an applied scientist
Most of the global warming literature that I have seen ignores the following issues:
a) time span over which data is collected is very short. Only a few countries have collected climate data and those countries have collected that data for a relatively short period of time.
b) lack of uniforma data. Climate data has been collected for a variety of purposes other than testing of any global climate change hypothesis. For instance, some climate data has been collected to study the localized occurrence of hurricanes. Climate data used in many studies has not been collected in a uniform manner : same time of day, same longitude, latitude and altitude, same season, same collecting device, etc., etc., etc.,
c) lack of uniform data about suspected independent variables. The thesis of the global warming crowd is that human activity, not the natural variation in the life cycle of planet Earth, has caused the alleged global warming. Various by-products of human activity have been suggested, mainly industrial and automotice emissions. We don’t have good data about the volume and nature of these emissions
d)inability to separate potential man-made independent variables from potential naturally occurring independent variables. Nature does produce carbon based compounds fairly frequently from natural processes and these compounds can be exposed to airborne transport; example forest fires, volcanoes, slow lava flows, wind storms in desert areas, techtonic plate shifts. None of these are controlled by humans.
e) lack of complete understanding of the sun’s activity. Any geologists will tell you that the heat provided to the Earth by the sun dwarfes anything heat generated by human activity. Yet, we are just beginning to understand the very marked ebbs and flows of the heat that the Sun delivers to us. Sun spot activity can and does cause very large percentage changes in the heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun . This science is critical to the attempt to analyze potential trends in global climate change, and it is still in its infancy.
This is a topic worth studying but it has been severely “polluted” by politics. Few people can think clearly. It is clear that there exists a drive by environmentalists to do two things: first, demonize modern industrial society per se and second, impose Marxist controls over economic activity under the guise of “saving the Earth” as opposed to coming out and openly stating their Marxist goals.
Marxists haven’t disappeared, they have just changed clothes.