Friday, July 18, 2014




  1. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; 
  2. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; 
  3. Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; 
  4. Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; 
  5. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; 
  6. Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; 
  7. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; 
  8. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; 
  9. James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; 
  10. Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; 
  11. Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; 
  12. Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; 
  13. Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; 
  14. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; 
  15. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva;
  16. AND: Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" 
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. 
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. 
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. 
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. 
The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. 
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. 
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."


Pastorius said...

It almost reads like you wrote it 5-7 years ago.

Unknown said...

Here are a few scientific organizations agreeing on AGW:


Davieboy said...

Written in 2014... So not quite 5-7 years. But factual, all the same.