An open letter about climate politics from seven distinguished climate researchers and friends of science follows:
Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases”.
Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon slams political open letter issued by 375 NAS activists, calling manmade global warming science a “totalitarian view”. Soon has been viciously attacked by activist groups, organizations and the mainstream media. He refuses to back down. Image: Heartland Institute.
Global warmists making outlandish and absurd claims…
We influence climate by returning to the air carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by breathing carbon dioxide and returning oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature extraordinarily stable for more than 800,000 years.
The activists say we are warming the oceans. But even the worst assessment says this is just 1 degree Celsius every 430 years.
The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet all data shows the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The activists say the oceans are “acidifying”. The truth is that we have no idea whether or at what rate the oceans are “acidifying”. What is known, however, is that the oceans are pronouncedly alkaline and are so powerfully buffered that alkaline they must remain.
The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns”: but there is little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.
The activists say we are to blame for retreating Arctic sea ice. But Arctic sea ice variations, if objectively quantified with proper error estimates, are fully within the large natural range of changes that have no need of any unique explanation by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition Antarctic sea ice, which they forget, has largely offset the loss of Arctic ice.
Failed predictions mean bad science
The activists declare their faith in the doctrine “that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks” to everything from national security via health and agriculture to biodiversity. But this statement is based wholly on faith and is unsupported by reality. We know this because of the serially failed predictions made by the activists. Good science makes accurate predictions.
The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points”. Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return”, but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today.
The activists say warmer weather will “possibly” set in motion “large-scale ocean circulation changes”. The scientific truth is that, while the wind blows, the Earth rotates and its land-masses are approximately where they are, the ocean circulation must remain much as it is now. To suggest otherwise is mere rodomontade.
Scientists, like other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process. This applies to non-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.
Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming Presidential Election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.
Therefore, the signatories hereto repudiate the letter issued by the 375 activists as reflecting not scientific truth but quasi-religious dogma and totalitarian error; we urge the voters to disregard that regrettable and anti-scientific letter; and we invite every citizen to make up his or her own mind whom to elect to the nation’s highest office without fear of the multifarious bugaboos conjured into terrifying but scientifically unjustifiable existence by the totalitarian activists who have for decades so disrespected, disgraced and disfigured climate science.
(A more detailed version of this reply is available at the Breitbart News)
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, and Willie Soon
9 responses to “Harvard Physicist, Experts Blast Manmade Climate Change Claims As “Activist”, “Error-Prone”, “Rodomontade”!”
Here the 7 expects are right, as the NAS is abusing its authority in claiming it is the holder of the truth. It is not. For decades, leading scientific academies also 100% endorsed the lipid hypothesis in nutrition, claiming that saturated fats led to cardiovascular disease. Today we are realizing they were totally wrong. The evidence behind man-made global warming is even far weaker and far more politicized, and it too will join the scrap heap of discarded junk science.
The letter sounds, to my mind, like it was written by Christopher Monckton, who is a “lukewarmer”, one who accepts the consensus “greenhouse effect” theory but who argues on the basis that its “global warming” effect is substantially less than the alarmists in authority positions claim. Words like “rodomontade” are the sure mark of Monckton (who seems unable to forego the “of Brenchley” after, or “Lord” before, his name). And he, like all the lukewarmer and alarmist believers in the “greenhouse effect”, is no expert.
A good clue to the really basic errors that creep into the minds of even the lukewarmer skeptics is in the sentence above:
“…it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that ‘Science’ demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.”
On the contrary, I know the academic, “consensus” climate science is completely incompetent and should not be allowed to force outrageous laws, regulations and radical, jihadist political elitists upon the people of the world. Or to put it more succinctly, a “new world order” should not–must not–be based upon outright lies and false scientific dogma. Knowing that, as a competent physical scientist I can tell the American voters with utter certainty that only by voting for Donald Trump can they help the real scientific truth come out, and abort the tyranny that has arisen with Obama and will be carried through by Hillary Clinton.
No lukewarmer can tell you how bad the situation really is. The truth is that there is no valid “global” climate science, and no “experts”, no competent climate scientists.
Nevertheless, Monckton has penned many of the most erudite and devastating articles exposing the CAGW fantasy
Agree, and “Totalitarian undercurrents” is an understatement.
The totalitarianism is totally ubercurrent.
A good list of people to begin an immediate pilot programme where those who ‘believe’ in banning fossil fuels get to go without fossil fuels first.
They can report back on their observations.
The report will have two words.
“it too will join the scrap heap of discarded junk science” – not a day too Soon!
Thanks foremost to the moral fortitude of scientists such as Willie Soon
followed by the perseverance of bloggers such as Pierre Gosselin, and finally by the slowly dawning realisation of ordinary people that what we’ve been led to believe for a whole generation is fraudulent, unsubstantiated BS.
well said that man