Fake climate science and scientists

“We’re tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.”
– Paul Driessen

“For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists,” says Paul Driessen.

“They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies – for no climate benefit … with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels … and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.”

Driessen’s article this week tackles this problem head-on.

Fake climate science and scientists

Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

Paul Driessen

The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system – all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principle or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes – and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate – and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.”

Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains.

The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.

The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

13 thoughts on “Fake climate science and scientists”

  1. Great article.
    However, we do face two climate crises: The current Little Ice Age and the looming regular ice age which may be worse than the previous one. A billion or maybe more people are likely to die during this little ice age since they are already living on the border of starvation.

    Look at this graph and see that the height of this warm period is less than the other peaks of the last 450k years. The previous warm periods lasted about the same time as this current one already has. No previous period spiked after the onset which this current one is way past.

    We need to prepare, develop more fossil fuels like coal, albeit with high scrubbing, methane, and oil. We need to use and develop plants that will survive the coming lower temperatures, less rain, be more productive

  2. id be taking a pic of that sign..its the sign of too stupid to exist people bragging of their idiocy
    funny and sad at the same time.
    thing is from medical to pharma to ag and food manufacturing and a whole lot more -so much has been corrupted for money and patents and cli-sci is just another variant on the lies for power control and a fast buck for the privledged.
    nothing wrong with making a living and a profit BUT the degree of profit? off the labour and lifeblood of others is pretty disgusting in most cases. whatever political label you opt for the corruption and misuse of power remains the same.

  3. I like the phrase….. “denier..denier ” for those who don’t think we have a sun or heat from it…. lol

  4. NASA scientists warn of ‘perfect storm’ as cosmic rays reach record high; Earth facing a mini Ice Age

    Wow…NASA finally gets the memo, even a broken clock is right twice a day i guess. Unfortunately for them, it is worse than that, as several well known scientists think we are headed into a Grand Solar minimum, which if true, could last up to 1,000 years…

  5. I think all of this “banning” just helps politicians feel powerful, when in fact they are impotent. At some point they inevitably go too far and have to pull back, if not run away. Look at the French yellow vest protests. They started when Macron, in accordance with the Paris climate accord, raised the fuel tax to a seriously noticeable level. The people were already under stress with the immigration problems and inflation, higher personal taxes, and a threat that if they had unused rooms in their houses, they may be forced to take in migrants. The yellow vest protests are still going on, but you don’t hear about them in the news any more. They don’t work with the narrative.

  6. If the scientific consensus is as flawed as you say it is, then why do you need to engage in conspiratorial thinking and mudslinging? Why not just present the hard scientific evidence in support of your viewpoint? And why are these contrarian opinions restricted to to the blogosphere and newspaper editorials where scholarly references and scientific scrutiny are conveniently unnecessary?
    Defamation and conspiracy theories are a desperate last resort for ideologues who will not acknowledge evident truths they cannot accept.

    • Quote:
      Defamation and conspiracy theories are a desperate last resort for ideologues who will not acknowledge evident truths they cannot accept.
      Which completly sums up the CAGW view point, lable cyclic climate change proponents, based on weather observations since the 10th Century in Europe and since 4500 BC in china as Deniers when what the vast majority of scientists and lay people disagree with is the missing two words in the IPCC reports – HUMAN INDUCED climate change via human injected CO2.
      When in fact the world weather and climate is moderated by levels of UV and EUV during the normal solar cycle of 11 yrs.
      CAGW proponents are anti technology and anti science, they wish the Western world to degenerate back to a hunter gather world with not technology except for the tiny master race of around 200 million selected, genetically superior humans with the rest as slaves.

    • I think the contrarian view arose in response to the terrible way this issue (human-caused global warming) was first presented at the so-called “Rio Summit”. This early ’90’s event was chaired by Maurice Strong, a finance maven who saw this as a big money-making opportunity. We were then told “the science is settled” (about as an unscientific statement as one could possibly make), and that 97% of scientists agreed about something or another. This had all the earmarks of a religious edict.

      Immediately, anyone who raised questions was branded a “denier”. To all intents and purposes, you would lose your academic career if you failed to support the AGW consensus.

      Over the years, virtually every weather-related event, even geological events have been sited as being caused by AGW. Ludicrous assertions about migration being directly caused by warming are but one example.

      Over this past winter, an unusually heavy snow pack accumulated in much of eastern Canada. Temperatures remained below normal for much of the early Spring. The snow subsequently melted in a hurry, and a number of regions are experiencing devastating flood conditions. A hue and cry has gone up that this has been caused by global warming. Little is said about the lunacy of allowing residential construction on flood plains, or the fact that some of the flooding has occurred due to neglected infrastructure.

      Meanwhile, rich individuals fly around the World in private jets, expressing their outrage over climate change. The burden of addressing AGW will primarily be borne by middle class and working class citizens.

      And please, don’t hit me with “peer reviewed science”. That could be called “I’ll scratch your back; you scratch mine”.

  7. If one accepts the claims of Trenberth et al 2009 approvimately 83% of the radiation Earth emits to space comes from the atmosphere while only 17% is directly from the Earth’s surfaces.

    Climate scientists tell us that the 99% of the atmosphere that is Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are NOT “greenhouse gases” and do not absorb significant quantities of infra-red radiation and by definition they therefore do not emit significant quantities of infra-red radiation. This seems to be true as we all know infra-red remote controls work – the radiation isn’t absorbed by the air nor is it interfered with by the radiation from the air.

    So if 83% of the infra-red radiation emitted to space comes from a mere 2% water vapour and 0.042% CO2 as Trenberth et al and the IPCC claim why would adding more of the only molecules capable of “cooling” the Earth’s atmosphere reduce the cooling capacity ?

    This claim defies logic – radiation science explicitly says the emissivity of air increases with added CO2 and increased emissivity results in higher radiant emission levels at the same temperature.

    Higher radiant emission levels from the atmosphere equates to more cooling and not heat trapping.

    So perhaps the alarm is completely backwards – higher emissivity equates to more cooling albeit it a small amount because the amount of CO2 is small. This is not good news however – it may trigger a return to glaciation.

    All of this assumes that about 650 MILLIGRAMS of CO2 in every KILOGRAM of ordinary air is even relevant to temperature at all – some thing I do not subscribe to.

Comments are closed.