• J. Stateham

The Climate of Science

Updated: Mar 24

Science is only as good as its predictive ability. Physics got us to the moon because it could accurately predict the movements of celestial bodies in orbit and rockets under thrust. Computing technology works because it can predict, control and manipulate the movement of electrons. But when science produces models which predict outcomes that do not match reality with any degree of reliability, it becomes more like astrology than astronomy with data being read like tarot cards. This is what famed nuclear physicist Alvin M. Weinberg coined as "trans-science" back in 1972. He worried that society would look to science and scientists more and more for answers to questions which were unknowable to and unanswerable by science. As such, climate science may be the epitome of Dr. Weinberg's greatest fear. Dr. Daniel Sarewitz writes in his profound article, Saving Science, that "To ensure that science does not become completely infected with bias and personal opinion, Weinberg recognized that it would be essential for scientists to “establish what the limits of scientific fact really are, where science ends and trans-science begins.” But doing so would require “the kind of selfless honesty which a scientist or engineer with a position or status to maintain finds hard to exercise.” Moreover, this is “not at all easy since experts will often disagree as to the extent and reliability of their expertise.”" Sarewitz—addressing the issue of global warming specifically—continues, "Mathematical models of future rates and consequences of climate change are highly sensitive to assumptions about things that are totally unpredictable (such as trends in economic growth or technological innovation), and so the models spew out endless streams of trans-scientific facts that allow for claims and counterclaims, all apparently sanctioned by science, about how urgent the problem is and what needs to be done. If we were instead to exercise the “selfless honesty” advocated by Weinberg and own up to the assumptions that led us to the results of the climate models, then we would have to abandon any claim to an absolute, scientific truth that gives those results their legitimacy in society." Temperature data has certainly been read, interpreted, and reinterpreted for at least the last half century. Unsurprisingly, not a single scientific environmental prediction in the last 50 years has actually come to pass (here's a list of 18, or a list of over 100 failed predictions for those keeping track). In fact, humanity and the environment are doing quite well right now despite population growth. Indeed, research has shown that credentialed experts are actually the worst at predicting the future. But this comically bad track record has not deterred the environmental prophets from making further pronouncements with great certainty—like the claim that current CO2 levels will raise global temperatures by 3.6 degrees F. But back in the 60's and 70's, scientists, authors, politicians, and the media were predicting an incoming ice age using the same data now used to promote catastrophic warming. The Cooling Scare

1958 Flashback article

1971 Flashback article

WH Advisor on Ice Age

1972: Walter Cronkite Warns of Ice Age

Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling, posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees and served as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports on global warming. In a quotation published in Discover, he said:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Turning to the Warm Side The ice age didn't pan out and climate scientists needed a vehicle to ensure the steady flow of grant money (over $50 billion in US government grants just since 1993, and hundreds of billions on climate change programs overall) and so they turned their attention to the greenhouse gas theory by Svante Arrhenius from 1896 and popularized the global warming idea around 1979. Scientists at the government run NOAA have since at best reinterpreted, and at worst have actually manipulated the temperature data to support the warming hypothesis. Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore responded to the question of why scientists might succumb to such a tans-science theory in a 2011 interview saying:

“A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.” But while science requires a hypothesis to be adjusted if the data doesn't match the prediction, with trans-science, if there isn't harmony it's possible to adjust the data to match the prediction. Exhibit A: here is evidence that global temperature data has been tampered with to fit the popular hypothesis of climate change.

Political Science The issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is touted as science, but is far more political than scientific—even in its terminology and language. If you lean Democrat/liberal, you will tend to believe in it and if you lean Republican/conservative, you will tend to be skeptical. The reason is mainly the political implications of the idea, rather than its scientific merit. The actual science behind AGW is inconclusive at best (there is no real experimental data, only assumption-sensitive theoretical models), but the real reason it is such a hot topic is because of the policies that politicians are pushing for assuming the hypothesis to be correct—or at least beneficial for their agenda. See for yourself:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” -Former French President Jacques Chirac at the U.N. Conference on Climate Change in Hague, 2000

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” -IPCC Official Ottmar Edenhofer, 2010 “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” - Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC's Chief of Staff, 2019 (link)

"After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.” -Greta Thunberg, Child Climate Activist, 2019 (link)

Many people believe in AGW because they think they are supporting a "Green" cause. The reality is AGW has little to do with the environment and everything to do with world politics and economics. This is why Democrats and liberals tend to push the AGW message and why Republicans and conservatives tend to reject it—because the former are pro-big government and the latter typically are not. Recognizing the political agenda then, it should be of no surprise that the doomsday predictions have been beaten into our brains, touted as "settled science" and dubious stats like "97% of scientists agree" (a highly contested figure—see here and here) paraded around and repeated ad nauseam every time someone has the nerve to challenge this sacred leftist political ideology. Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore put this in perspective back in the same 2011 interview:

“We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

Top physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson agrees. In a forward to a report called "Carbon Dioxide: The Good News" by Dr. Indur M. Goklany, Dyson states: "To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage. I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence." In a 2015 interview with The Register, Dr. Dyson discussed some of the factors the current climate alarmists were driven by:

"It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation. It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today." The New Old Religion

Worship of nature and mother earth (Gaia) is nothing new—it's an utterly ancient pagan belief system—the current iteration we practice simply has a more sophisticated façade. But environmentalism is a religious belief. Recently, an MIT climate scientist actually argued that Global Warming is a cult and the late famed author Michael Crichton, who held degrees in anthropology and medicine from Harvard University, gave a speech in 2003 refuting the pseudo-scientific nonsense of global warming and explained how "secular" societies simply turn to secular religions—environmentalism being chief among them. This anthropological phenomenon is well documented and understood as humanity is hardwired to believe in something greater than themselves in order to bring meaning to their lives (see the book Why God Won't Go Away). What is rather peculiar however, is that many Christians have latched onto this secular religion out of a misguided sense that it aligns with our biblical responsibilities as stewards of the earth or, even more erroneously, that it somehow equates to loving your neighbor and protecting their lives and the lives of future generations. In fact, the Pope has even declared "ecological sin" a new theological teaching in the Catholic church. But it is clear that this ideology goes far beyond respect and responsibility and does not align with biblical teaching regarding the sanctity of human life. It strays into blatant worship and statements of faith as the arguments are largely unfalsifiable, the predictions are always wrong, and the "solutions" ultimately and invariably lead to calls for "degrowth" by imploding the world economy and "depopulation" by culling humanity. The rhetoric always labels humanity as a plague, a blight, and a virus which needs controlled or even eradicated in order to preserve the sanctity and balance of nature.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that politicians like Bernie Sanders are advocating for abortion and population control as solutions for climate change. It's not just politicians though, scientists are advocating population control to combat climate change as well. Even climate change activist groups like Extinction Rebellion admit that the climate isn't their real issue. Co-Founder Stuart Basden stated it plainly writing, "XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life." Like others, Basden believes humanity is the problem because the ideology held by these people is that the lives of animals, plants, and even the preservation of current inanimate landscapes are viewed as a higher priority than human life. Mankind in this worldview is consistently demonized as an unfortunate evolutionary error which needs correction. So of course it's not a problem when the real effects of climate change policies internationally are actually far deadlier for humanity than the hypothetical effects of climate change itself—that's a feature, not a bug. The ideology doesn't actually seek to save humanity, it seeks to save everything else at the expense of humanity. As researcher Alex Epstein details in the book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, the truth is if we care about humanity, then abundant and affordable energy technologies and policies should be our primary focus. Epstein's assessment more closely aligns with a biblical worldview which unabashedly declares mankind's preeminent value as God made man in His image, made the earth as well as the entire universe solely for man's benefit, commanded man to be fruitful and multiply in order to fill the earth, and gave dominion over all creation to humanity. Where Gaia worship invariably seeks to preserve nature beyond the assumed—and seemingly desired—extinction of the human species, God's plan is to preserve humanity infinitely beyond the destruction of the created universe. The preservation of man, not nature, is paramount in scripture and a single soul is more precious to God than any environment. Indeed, Gaia worshippers would be appalled by God's priorities and actions during Noah's flood as the entire global environment was completely destroyed seemingly without a care for animal natural habitats or the dramatic effects on the climate. But now that we have solid evidence (see links below) that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is perpetuated on manipulated and biased data sets, I think it provides a great opportunity for everyone to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation. As much as our society wants scientists to be the high priests of our faith in secular materialism, it should go without saying that donning a lab coat does not make one inerrant or altruistic. Plato captured the conundrum eloquently when he stated, "Science is nothing but perception." The issue is that scientists are human and each have bias, ideologies, motives and sometimes even agendas. The scientific method can help mitigate that reality, but it cannot negate it. Science needs to face the consequences of its hubris, our society needs to realize its god has feet of clay, and all of us need to realize that politicians are using AGW to advance their agendas today in the same way they have used other religious justifications throughout history.

At this point, even award-winning and celebrated liberal environmentalists like Michael Shellenberger are calling out the lies and hysterics of the climate alarmists. In fact, the alarmist narrative has gotten so ridiculous, that Shellenberger recently wrote a public apology on behalf of environmentalists and authored a 400 page book debunking all the popular climate scare talking points called Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All — complete with over 100 pages of footnotes and citations of scientific studies. So it's time we stop the apoplectic hyperventilating and calmly and rationally reassess the situation instead of championing angry children as heroic climate spokesmen. As climate scientist Tom Wigley said in an interview, "All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong." Maybe it's time we let the grown-ups talk...

Fraudulent and Manipulated Data:

Man-Made or Natural Causes?

Is the Future Warmer or Cooler?

  • Scientists are now predicting a century of cooling (again), not warming.

  • Despite unprecedented volumes of man-made CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere (~30 gigatons per year amidst ~750 gigatons from natural sources), the cold hard data indicates a slight cooling trend rather than a warming one. The newest, most advance monitoring stations show a slight cooling trend over the last 10 years.

  • New solar models with a 97% accuracy rating predict new mini ice age, not warming.

  • New models of solar activity predict global ice age.

  • Another study from the field of solar physics predicts a new ice age—warmists upset.

  • Yet another mini ice age prediction due to low solar activity.

  • New NASA study disputes IPCC claims- Antarctica is actually GAINING billions of tons of ice per year. The lead NASA scientist over the study thinks that we should still be worried about global warming though...

  • New NASA data reveals that the ice caps have not melted after all, despite previous claims, warnings and predictions.

  • In a twist of irony, new scientific study shows the decrease in man-made aerosol pollutants is actually increasing the rate of the ice caps melting. AGW alarmists have been blaming man-made pollution as the cause of the melting ice caps when in fact our air-born pollution was slowing it down.

Paris Accord and Government Policy:

Click here for the Forbes article several of the quotes are sourced from.