Fire is about more than burns. Water is about more than floods. We’re so obsessed with carbon dioxide’s risks, we’ve become blind to its benefits.
The climate scare rests on predictions produced by mathematical modeling. Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s finest scientific minds, says prediction isn’t what those models do – and that the climate conversation is ignoring important facts.
Bigotry and intolerance from scientific colleagues lead a Swedish scientist to resign from an advisory role with the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. If exploring alternative climate perspectives is verboten, genuine scientific inquiry has ceased to exist.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.
A Nobel laureate says people who question climate dogma deserve to be “punished in the afterlife.”
Why does the climate debate elicit so much partisan sneering from the media?
A new 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas – even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal. This suggests the IPCC’s top priority isn’t emissions reduction after all.
Governments around the world are convinced CO2 emissions are dangerous. Where did they get that idea? From computer models that even IPCC insiders say are uncertain, unreliable, and unvalidated.
Data is collected, recorded, adjusted & interpreted not by disinterested robots but by people. Because highly-educated individuals can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, the degree to which a person’s judgment can be trusted becomes a central concern.
The climate change debate is important. Human lives (and trillions of dollars) hang in the balance. We therefore need open, vigorous dialogue. We need to hear all perspectives. But this can’t happen when both sides are trying to shut down the debate by declaring other people’s views criminal.
When Laurens Bouwer served as a lead author for the 2001 climate bible he had not yet earned his Masters.
The IPCC surely needs to explain how research assistants and those-working-on-their-masters qualify as the world’s best experts and top scientists.
Science is about doubt – not certainty. Journalism is supposed to reveal – not conceal. When scientific organizations claim there’s a consensus, they step over the line into political advocacy. When media outlets trumpet said consensus they “disappear” highly-qualified, dissenting scientists.
For those of us who think science is about being open to new ideas and perspectives, Michael “hockey stick” Mann isn’t the kind of scientist we’d want our kids to grow up to be.