I have recently noted that the forces of climate cultism have been collapsing, as people have finally caught on to the pseudoscience used to push green grifting policies.
As a veteran of the battle for the use of sound science in policy development and media coverage, I wanted to take a moment to celebrate the recent victories we have had. The wins have been stacking up so high that President Donald Trump has publicly declared an end to what he calls climate crisis “pseudoscience,” in a statement widely shared on social media that states the “climate change hoax” is over.
This is not just a victory for MAGA, but also one for every American, as well as the rest of humanity. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy, derided by climate cultists, have played significant roles in providing affordable, reliable energy and raising global standards of living by enabling industrialization, technological advancement, and widespread electrification.
I wanted to take this opportunity to celebrate and share some milestones on the road to this victory. I began pushing-back on the global warming hysteria in 2010, as part of my initial foray into citizen activism. At that time, I met two brilliant physicists who challenged the climate models and group think being promoted at that time – Dr. Roger Cohen and Dr. Will Happer. Here is a bit of one of my first pieces, which is a quote from Dr. Cohen in reference to the infamous “climate stick” model:
“The most notorious issue involves a widely publicized e-mail string that has scientists discussing a so- called trick to hide the decline. They were talking about how to deal with a problem in showing how tree ring proxies stack up to the actual temperature record. The problem is that tree rings show a decline in their inferred temperature after 1960, while the actual temperature is believed to have increased. This is called the divergence problem. At issue is whether tree rings can be trusted as proxy “thermometers” going back 1,000 years or more if they can’t reproduce the last 40. The divergence problem was well known before the revelations. What is new is that we now know the details of an organized effort to cover up the discrepancies.”
It’s been a long, strange journey over these last 15 years. I am taking this moment to reflect upon the campaign for sound science.
Many who challenged the flawed models and histrionic were attacked, smeared, and professionally undermined. As an example, a Greenpeace activist accosted Dr. Happer (a member of the awesome CO2 Coalition) before a US Senate hearing. The comments to the video show how, despite the ambush, Happer kept the focus on science and reason.
Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry is a stellar example of scientific bravery. Curry’s skepticism about the magnitude and certainty of human-caused climate change led to her being marginalized by many mainstream climate scientists. She has described herself as being “tossed out of the tribe” within the climate science community, noting that her views made her a pariah at major climate conferences and in academic circles.
She hosts a blog called Climate Etc., which is a wonderful source of thorough, reasoned analysis of all aspects of climate science. In fact, an article entitled “A Critique of the Apocalyptic Climate Narrative” is a great overview of a work she and coauthor Harry DeAngelo, published in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.
There are a host of others who have fought bravely over the past decades to present new insights and data-oriented perspectives into polices related to climate, science, and energy. While there is a long list of contributors to this victory, I wanted to shine a light on some special ones.
We should take a moment to recognize the excellent work of Watts Up With That blog (especially Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter). The site regularly posts material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, especially the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. WUWT contributors argue that much of the temperature data used to support global warming claims is flawed due to factors like the urban heat island effect, and that climate change should be addressed gradually, with a focus on pragmatic technological advances instead of drastic regulatory shifts.
Another warrior for real science is Dr. Matthew Wielicki, who left academia to promote the Earth sciences he loves.
Then there is newly minted meteorologist Chris Martz, who is a fresh, fun voice for climate sanity. He also acknowledges his favorite colleagues and the toxic environment in today’s academia for challenging narrative orthodoxies.
The only ones who aren’t weirdos are Drs. Patrick Brown, John Christy, Judith Curry, Robert Rohde, Roy Spencer, and Paul Williams. I could also lump your (awesome) father in there, but he might prefer going by “meteorologist.” Rohde and Williams do often disagree with me, but they are always respectful and are good scientists.
I would like to give one final shout-out to HotAir’s Beege Welborn, who emphasizes the negative impacts on energy policies when climate pseudoscience is thrust into energy policymaking.
Now, I realize I will be back tomorrow refuting more bad science along with all my colleagues. But today, I wish to celebrate this hard-won victory.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY