Meet Thomas Schelling, Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Demagogue

We can go back and look at Al Gore, a documented fraud, a presenter of entirely false scientific claims, and the winner of a Nobel Prize for science.  A British High Court judge found nine “glaring” scientific errors in the Inconvenient Truth “documentary” that garnered Gore his scientific credibility.  But the only “inconvenient truth” was that the film was an example of “alarmism” and “exaggeration” and was not fit for viewing by British school children.

“Science” has officially and for the record made itself a propaganda tool to advance radical redistributionist social policies.

And now we have another Nobel prize winner doing the same thing to his own field of economics.

An Interview With Thomas Schelling, Part Two

CLARKE: I wanted to go back to the international climate-change negotiation process. So assuming we had a perfect U.S. bill — written by you or by 15 experts working on this full time — how would the international negotiation process work? It’s not obvious that averting global climate change is in the rational self-interest of anyone that is alive today. The serious consequences probably won’t occur until 2080 or 2100 or thereafter. That’s one problem. Another problem is that those consequences are going to be distributed in a radically uneven way. The northwest of the United States might actually benefit. So how does a negotiation process work? How does a generation today negotiate on behalf of future generations? And how do we negotiate when the costs are distributed so unevenly?

SCHELLING: Well I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren’t yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

SCHELLING: It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there’s a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale — even though methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long — it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.

CLARKE: And you mean serious for everyone, including the United States?

SCHELLING: Yes, for almost anybody.

CLARKE: And when you say, “exaggerate the costs” do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world?

SCHELLING: [Laughs] It’s very hard to get honest people.

SCHELLING: Well, part of me sympathizes with the case for disingenuousness! I mean, it seems to me that there is a strong moral case for helping unborn Bangladeshi citizens. But I don’t know how you sell that. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest, at least in the US, to legislate on that basis.

Well, let me at least agree with Thomas Schelling to this extent: yes, it is indeed hard to find honest people.  Especially from our “experts” whom we count upon to inform us of the facts, rather than leading us by the hand to conclusions based on false premises becauses they are arrogant elitists who think only they are smart enough to handle the truth.

The article goes on – read it here – with a seriously leftist-tilted back-and-forth about climate change and the degree to which America is morally obligated to commit economic hari kari in order to atone for its sins to the developing world.

Then we get to the moral nitty gritty to end the article:

CLARKE: I wanted to ask one more question, to go back to the moral issue here. It does seem to me that the strongest case for mitigating the effects of global climate change is a moral one. It is based not on our own interest but on the interests of people in the developing world who don’t yet exist. But it also seems to me that — while I don’t know much about game theory — collective bargaining theories generally assume the participants are rational and self-interested. So how does one go about making sense of an arrangement where we must set our self-interest aside? How does one make the moral case in a situation like this? Or is my description of collective bargaining just totally idiotic?

SCHELLING: Well, I think you have to realize that most people have very strong moral feelings. I think in a lot of cases they’re misdirected. I wish moral feelings about a two-month old fetus were attached to hungry children in Africa. But I think people have very strong moral feelings. In fact, I’m always amazed by the number of people who at least pretend they’re worried about the polar bears. […]

SCHELLING: And I think the churches don’t realize that they could have a potent effect in not letting so much of god’s legacy — in terms of flora and fauna — be destroyed by climate change.

SCHELLING: But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Now, Thomas Schelling one the one hand tells us that we should feel intensely morally obligated to “beneficiaries [who] not yet born” – as long as they’re not “a two month old fetus” who is presumably about to be aborted – in which case we apparently have absolutely no obligation at all.  But stop and think: the moral logic of abortion means the future generation doesn’t matter unless we subjectively want them to matter.  No one who advocates abortion has any right to lecture others that they should not only care about but sacrifice for “beneficiaries not yet born.” Then Schelling proceeds to presume from his own massive personal arrogance that the American people’s moral intuitions are faulty, but that his are functioning perfectly.  Which of course justifies him in lying to us to steer us toward the conclusion dictated by his own superior moral reasoning.

And then this man who presumes himself to be so morally superior to everyone “beneath” him, who is entitled to “exaggerate the threat” of global warming because Americans are not responsible to make sound moral decisions if they know the truth, says he hopes “horrid things” happen to we the poor, the huddling, the ignorant and unwashed masses.

This economist seems to live more by the law involving the telling of a lie often enough that it is believed far more than by the law of supply and demand.

It’s funny that Schelling mentions polar bears, as an admitted global warming exaggerator now proceeds to run into the pseudo-science of another global warming exaggerator.  And you have – unlike Al Gore or Thomas Schelling, who have credibility in the scientific community without having any ethical integrity – a genuine scientist being persecuted because he cares about the truth:

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

And we have the same types of people as Thomas Schelling suppresing the conclusions of science that show the opposite of what they want science to show.  Consider the White House’s suppression of a scientific report by the EPA.

Or you can go back to the “hockey stick model” to see just how far “respected” scientists are willing to go in order to pass off a bogus theory for mass consumption — and just how willing other scientists are to unquestioningly accept whatever “evidence” supports their preconceived ideological notions.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein apparently lacks Thomas Schelling’s godlike view, and thus doesn’t seem to think he possesses the divine right to distort the truth in order to lead Americans to the conclusions he ordains as “moral.”

Feldstein simply looks at the economics – which, who knows, may be a strange thing for an economist to do these days – and concludes:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

Aside from the fact that building scientific evidence indicates that global warming is a gigantic load of malarkey (just consider how the fact that the planet ISN’T warming has now led the alarmist movement to instead begin using the term “climate change”), global warming-turned climate change alarmists have an even bigger problem to worry about: the fact that the developing world has no interests in committing their own versions of hari kari for the sake of a theory.  China and India are poised to become “global warming polluters” on such a scale that any reductions in American and European greenhouse gasses would be utterly insignificant.  So why should we dramatically undermine our lives?

Chinese and Indians know what it’s like to live in a mud hut, which is the inevitable result of dramatically hamstringing our economic output to conform to the demands of the global warming alarmists.  The western radicals either don’t know what such deplorable conditions are like, or they believe that they – being the true arrogant elitists they are – will continue to live in their glass houses or ivory towers.

Government Covering Up Science Proving Global Warming Is Bogus

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”  It was just another smarmy attempt on his part to demagogue the Bush administration and hold himself up as superior.  But rather than actually proving himself morally superior to George Bush, Barack Obama has actually demonstrated just the opposite.

Science is forced to sit at the back of the bus now as it has never been before.  And it is Barack Obama who is making it sit there.

While we consider massive legislation that would cripple U.S. productivity for a generation in the name of curbing carbon dioxide gasses that supposedly cause global warming, shouldn’t we consider the fact that the science actually says that global temperatures actually DROPPED for the past 11 years, even as carbon dioxide gas increased? Shouldn’t it matter that global temperatures are roughly where they were at the middle of the 20th century, and that if anything temperatures are going down rather than up?  Shouldn’t it matter that the models that created the alarmist hype of “global warming” have now been proven to have been entirely wrong?  Shouldn’t we truly question the link between whatever global warming we are seeing and carbon dioxide?

Not if the Obama White House and his Envioronmental Protection Agency have anything to do with it.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

The suppression of evidence against global warming is not just occurring at the EPA.  It goes on all the time.  In another example that is occurring right now, one of the world’s leading polar bear experts is being barred from a conference simply because he knows how to count and doesn’t want to be pressured into positions that are opposed to his own scientific conclusions.

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

As Alan Carlin’s own suppressed report also states, the best evidence holds that we will actually be seeing global cooling over the next three decades.

Do we have an impartial analysis of climate change data that shows the best conclusion of science apart from bias?  Not even close.  NASA has repeatedly erred in its presentation of data that reveals outright bias.
Back in 2007, NASA had to eat a report that had showed the hottest recorded years on record had occurred during the 1990s when in fact they had occurred in the 1930s.  There have in fact been repeated corrections that always erred on the side of the global warming alarmists.  And the unfortunate past shows that NASA has been all-too-willing to engage in speculation and hype in place of legitimate science.

During the 1970s, NASA scientists were warning about ice-age-like global cooling due to “the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere” and saying that “fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees” (realizing that all the disaster-hype now is freaking out over certain predictions of just a ONE degree increase.  That alarmist prediction was published in the Washington Post on July 9, 1971 in an article entitled, “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.”  The NASA scientist who offered that clearly false prediction relied on data compiled by a computer model created by colleague James Hansen.  And Hansen has flipped from being one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic ice age to one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic global warming.

We have seen a pattern of bogus science and alarmism for decades now.  And all men like Alan Carlin ask is that bureaucrats take a step back and assess the science before they jump into overreaching policies that will destroy our economy.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which released the EPA-suppressed Alan Carlin report, made the following statement:

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA an d others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclu sions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these groups that may be blamed for this error.”

CEI also released the emails, avalible here.

That the IPCC should be discounted as a serious scientific entity should be proven by their gullible and ideological acceptance of a “hockey stick” model (so named because the data were manipulated to appear as though temperatures which had supposedly been flat for centuries suddenly shot up to form a hockey stick-like graph) was entirely fraudulent.

Anyone who takes a long view of things – and takes a few minutes to actually look at the scientific evidence – isn’t particularly alarmed about the “global warming.”  What we find instead of anthropogenic global warming is a consistent cycle that has continued steadily long before man began to do anything to change the environment.

(Accessed via Newsbusters, which has a write-up on the chart).

I read the powerful book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, which presents such an overwhelming case for naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles (having nothing to do with carbon dioxide or human activity) that it is posivitively unreal.  Based on my reading, I wrote 2 articles that summarized some of what I learned:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Not only is the current Obama cap-and-trade legislation based on bogus science, but even if it WEREN’T bogus, the massively costly program would STILL have absolutely no impact on “global warming.”

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein writes in the Washington Post:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

The people who are advancing the global warming agenda don’t give a whig about climate change.  What they want is statist government control, and the implementation of economic redistributionism in the name of “science.”

Global Warming? Al Gore and the Crisis of Global Stupidity

Call me a Global Stupidity theorist.

I have come to believe that one of the greatest crises that mankind faces today is due to anthropogenic global stupidity.

Runaway global warming alarmism has pushed pseudo-science superheated emissions to dangerous levels much faster than previously estimated and, instead of reaching the threshold within a decade, it was actually crossed two years ago. Anthropogenic global stupidity may have pushed earth past the tipping point, according to one study.

I’m ridiculing these idiots, obviously. But you have to laugh at such paranoid nonsense.

Al Gore, the “patron saint” of global warming alarmism is more of a “patent stooge.”

Al Bore showed up on NBC’s Meet the Press on July 20, 2008 and had this to say:

VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I mean, I think there’s a consensus now that it’s happening even more rapidly than the scientists were telling us years ago. We’re seeing record high temperatures. Nine of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have, have been in the last couple of decades. We’re seeing the stronger storms. We’re seeing the damage that, that people–and our national security experts–the military intelligence, the Pentagon, the National Intelligence Defense Council–they have warned us about the national security threats from potentially hundreds of millions of climate refugees caused by the climate crisis. This is really–just this, this past week, the EPA said the American way of life is threatened.

Shortly after the rambling hypocrite left the state to presumably go back to his mansion that uses twenty times more energy than anyone else’s, Tom Brokaw said this of Bore:

MR. BROKAW: Chuck Todd, David Gregory, welcome to both of you. Let’s begin with Al Gore.

He’s tan, rested, but apparently not ready to go back into government, Chuck. Let me just offer a proposition. No one is better informed on this issue of energy conservation and global climate change than he is, no one is more passionate about it. But this issue breaks along party lines as you go across the country. Do you think it is, in part, because in the eyes of Republicans and those on the right, he is still very much a radioactive political figure, and he would be better off if he appeared on stage

Well, under the theory that “No one is better informed on this issue of energy conservation and global climate change than Al Gore is,” you’d at least expect him to get his pertinent facts somewhat correct.

But nope. Al spouts off debunked idiocy the way Jesus spouted off universal wisdom. His claim that “We’re seeing record high temperatures. Nine of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have, have been in the last couple of decades”? Just plain NOT.

NASA was forced to revise its rankings for the hottest years on record after a blogger – A BLOGGER – discovered serious mathematical errors in the process that the agency so advanced it sends rockets to Mars had relied upon to advance the global warming myth.

The new figures are available at this official NASA/GISS site. The higher the positive annual mean figure, the warmer the year was.

According to NASA’s revised data, the hottest 10 years on record, beginning with the hottest, actually are:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Five of the top ten occur prior to 1940, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures, and six of the top ten hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

That doesn’t sound nearly as good as “Nine of the 10 hottest years on record,” though. Al Gore is a firm believer in the old pseudo-scientific adage, “If the facts get in the way of my theory, so much the worse for the facts.”

I’ve got a better “Nine out of 10” sort of figure for you.

A British judge who was asked to rule on whether Al Bore’s Inconvenient Truth movie could be distributed throughout the nation’s schools ruled that there were nine glaring scientific errors in the film, and that Al Gore was using “alarmism” and “exaggeration.”

Reason Magazine ripped Al Gore’s credibility to shreds.

That didn’t stop Gore from garnering a Nobel Prize. Apparently, Joseph Goebbels-like propaganda tactics are now perfectly acceptable in today’s postmodern version of “science.” If your ideology is suitably politically correct, it no longer matters if all your “facts” are actually wrong. It is downright scary.

Al Gore is just as wrong about his continued propaganda myth of “scientific consensus.”

And he’s making scientifically indefensible and, yes, alarmist and exaggerated claims regarding storms as well. It is the number of people living along coastal areas, rather than global warming, that is the most worrisome trend taking place.

And to debunk the last claim in his quote, describing “hundreds of millions of climate refugees caused by the climate crisis,” realize that one of the nine documented “alarmist and exaggerated” claims referred to an Al Gore claim that “low lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated.” It’s simply false. The man doesn’t need facts when hysterical claims suit his agenda better.

The discovery of a tropical heat vent that computer climate models do not take into account could reduce the threat of global warming to meaninglessness. The journal Science published a seventeen year study of Greenland’s ice sheet that flatly contradicts the hysterical reports and bogus claims from nutjobs like Al Bore. And World Climate Report has an article titled “Antarctic Ice: A Global Warming Snow Job?” that similarly shows the bogus hyper-alarmism surrounding that region. Another study just released shows that Greenland’s ice – in contradiction to alarmist theories – has easily survived previous global warmings and very likely will survive many more.

I’ve written previous articles detailing some of the vast research that has proven that “global warming” is NOT caused by man, but rather is a cyclical natural phenomena occurring roughly every 1,500 years. And I’ve written about the problem of ideology taking the place of genuine science, and the fact that scientists are literally being persecuted for debunking outright academic fraud and self-serving scientific errors.

“Global warming” is very likely not a serious problem for mankind (believe me, it’s a LOT better than an ice age!), but the real and growing threat of “global stupidity” looms larger than ever. And there seems to be no answer to this crisis.

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Most people are only being allowed to hear part of the story when it comes to global warming.

Global warming skeptics have been compared with holocaust deniers, and media reports routinely present the issue as “settled.” Those opposed to the global warming agenda are being openly mocked and attacked – but they are being mocked and attacked based on a straw-man misrepresentation of their position.

Most global warming skeptics readily acknoweldge that the planet is warming. What they deny is that man is causing that warming (anthropogenic global warming), or that man can do anything that would have more than a trivial impact on the warming that is occuring. And they question whether the warming that is occuring is even bad for the planet or for humanity.

There is clear evidence of a persistant natural global warming cycle that has dominated Earth’s temperatures for the past 10,000 years and extends back through several ice ages and warm interglacials for at least 1 million years. The evidence shows this cycle is responsible for most of Earth’s warming since 1850. The scientific evidence is found in more than 200 peer-reviewed papers published in professional journals representing the conclusions of more than 500 scientific experts. But that information is simply ignored by a frankly biased and leftist media, compressed into sounbites and buried in the back pages of newspapers, or spun by being “put into context.”

For example, it was front-page news when the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC) report proclaimed near-certainty that the cause of global warming was human; but how much coverage did the 2006 US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report get that presented clear evidence to the contrary?

Similarly, the statement in the IPCC Climate Change 1995 report claiming that scientists had found a “human fingerprint” in the current global warming received a great deal of attention. But the fact that that statement had been inserted into the report for political, not scientific, reasons, and that the accompanying “science volume” had been edited to remove five different statements by the scientific panel specifically saying that no such human fingerprint had been found, received very little attention. The author of that IPCC science chapter – a US government employee – had to publicly admit that he had inserted the scientifically indefensible language because of “back room” pressure from top US government officials (see Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences, “A Major Deception on Global Warming” in the 12 June 1996 Wall Street Journal; see also S. Fred Singer, Climate Policy from Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond (Palo Alto: Hoover Institution, Standford University 2000, p.19).

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation [update, August 21, 2011 – that link is now access-restricted; please see here] of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

Such views are not only dismissed, but are all-too often being ferociously attacked by every means possible with tactics that could legitimately be called Stalinist.

Dr. Lindzen – the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the leading scientific university in the world – wrote an article titled, “Climate of Fear” detailing the Orwellian tactics routinely used by the global warming alarmism industry to stifle or outright destroy skeptical scientists. He says, “there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

In one troubling case, a revered hurricane expert and global warming skeptic is being released from Colorado State University. Dr. William Gray, whose dean has publicly acknowledged that “He’s a great faculty member,” is being forced out of his position – not due to any allegations of incompetency or misconduct – but simply because “handling media inquiries for Dr. Gray’s work requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote the work of other professors.” Question: are scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming being fired because of media inquirees regarding their position? Universities generally like it when their faculty receive media exposure because it translates in increased student applications. Dr Gray rightly says, “This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to be a cover for the department’s capitulation to the desires of some who want to rein in my global warming and global warming-hurricane predictions.”

And if anything, the real “dirty secret” is that the “industry stooges” are actually working on the side of the global warming alarmist industry, such as the Pew Foundation, according to an article by climatologist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.

A blatant example of this is Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ Dr. James Hansen. Hansen wrote his first alarmist climate model – which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling – in 1971. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent the catastrophe of global cooling. Now his models just as stridently hype global warming catastrophe. He has appeared on numerous friendly media formats decrying “the politicization of science,” when he himself has politicized science more than anyone. He has received millions of dollars in funding from liberal activist sources such as George Soros and the Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. He also served as a paid consultant to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and has personally promoted the film.

I personally never had any axe to grind on “global warming” until a one-sided version of it was repeatedly imposed upon me. If there truly was a problem, I would have wanted to take steps toward a solution (I drive the speed limit to reduce my fuel consumption, carefully watch my water consumption, avidly recycle, and routinely pick up other people’s trash). But I became very suspicious way back in 1995 when UN officials began to call for draconian steps on the part of wealthy Western European economies, yet imposed nothing upon Russia, China, India, and the devoloping world. We were either facing a genuine global crisis – in which case coal burning developing countries needed to stop their coal burning and developing along with everyone else – or it was not. I began to suspect that the effort to combat global warming was far more a radical socialist redistribution campaign rather than a legitimate effort to truly combat an actual global crisis. And I have never seen anything that has ever revealed this view to be incorrect since.

I see the overwhelming evidence for constant warming and cooling climate cycles throughout the planet’s history simply dismissed as though it is utterly irrelevant to the question of current global warming, even as the global warming establishment categorically states that global warming is anthropocentric based on the flimsiest of evidence largely based on theoretical computer climate models.

I see the “experts” arbitrarily deciding to fixate on the 3.2 percent of carbon dioxide that is caused by humans and ignoring the 96.8% that is completely natural and out of human control. I see the claim that the United States must totally alter its entire way of life to reduce anthropogenic CO2 when anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

I see Al Gore receiving a Nobel Prize for science when his work is filled with one alarmist and exaggerated claim after another. Giving such an award to a man whose tactics represent those of Joeseph Goebbels more than those of objective science demonstrates what an ideological mockery the scientific project is increasingly becoming.

I see the theoretical future threat to polar bears as grounds for sweeping powers being granted to the Environmental Protection Agency despite the fact that the bear population has clearly doubled in the past thirty years. If global warming is truly having such a terrible impact on our environment, then advocates ought to have the ability to provide species whose population is truly being impacted.

I see the media hyping the melting northern ice caps and simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Antarctic ice levels have hit record highs.

I see the best available observations showing a global warming pattern (in latitude and altitude) that differ dramatically from the pattern calculated by computer greenhouse models being ignored. It doesn’t seem to matter that the observed and theoretical fingerprints simply do not match.

I see global warming alarmists continuing to point at severe weather as being caused by global warming when the science says otherwise. One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming causes hurricane activity to intensify has recently reversed his position, with little fanfare. Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of MIT now says that hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise over the next two centuries.

I see (and laugh!) one global warming conference hyping catastrophe after another having to be canceled every single year due to cold weather. I see (and laugh at!) the hypocrisy of UN “global warming experts” flying to Bali to have a conference saying the very thing they’re doing is destroying the planet!!! I see Al Gore’s home creating a carbon footprint that is 20 times larger than anyone else’s while he’s out telling people to ride their bikes everywhere to save the planet.

I see liberals advocating “carbon credits” the way the Catholic church at its worst sold indulgences to bribe God to ignore their sins. Apparently, if a pedophile molests a kid but gives money to an anti-child-molesting organization, his net molestation is zero. Carbon credits give wealthy global warming alarmists the ability to pay their way out of being forced to live the way they want to force everyone else to live.

I see liberals and environmental activists routinely using every means to block any effort to resolve our energy crisis by exploiting our abundant domestic oil resources, even as they constantly demagogue those who have been proposing how to increase the energy supply and reduce the increasingly shockingly-high price tag of energy that is essential to our economy. If your car will run on wind, then by all means let’s build more windmills. But otherwise, by all means, please let us increase our oil supply.

I see all this and more, and am therefore very skeptical as to why I need to support the most massive socialist redistribution program in world history and the complete undermining of the American economy in order to fight a theoretical threat – when all human history has shown that global warming is actually good for humans and it is ice ages that are bad. Civilizations such as the Roman and Mayan empires thrived during warming that is hotter than it is today; and it was during the cooling that occurred during the so-called Dark Ages that human civilization struggled to survive.

Also see my article, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming.”