Dear Senator: The Pseudoscience of Global Warming
Dear Senator: The Pseudoscience of Global Warming
Many U.S. and International academic climatologist now agree, in whole or in part, that the sun causes a considerable amount, if not all, of the earth’s surface temperature variability and that C02 fluctuations follow this variability – not the reverse. The science behind this is reviewed in the following text and is convincing. Most independent atmospheric scientists are on board. Government and U.N. supported departments are recalcitrant due to secure grant support and to avoid career embarrassment. The debate has become ideological – similar to Darwinism in the late 19th century. The larger science community has been slower. Most have a vague understanding of black body radiation but evidence for C02 lagging temperature variability has only recently come to light. Also, the retrograde solubility of C02 has not yet been widely publicized. The public lags way behind as do many purveyors of the news—undoubtedly because C02 has been publicized in the same breath as “pollution”, “climate change”, and “global warming”. This makes for an easy villain in a simple story. This is clearly wrong!
The primary mouthpiece of this pseudoscience is the IPCC—which was from the beginning, and still is, a political rather than a scientific entity (sepp.org). Each of 5 reports since 1990 has a Summary for Policymakers written by member governments and not by the scientists on whose work it is based. All 5 reports have drawn criticism from independent researchers for astounding misstatement of fact, omission of data, falsification of trends, faulty models, and exaggerated conclusions. 100 independent climatologists signed a Leipzig declaration against the IPCC in 1996. 1500 scientists signed an Oregon Institute petition against IPCC findings and recommendations in 1997. This number has now grown to more than 31,000 interested scientists (osim.org/pproject/). Most original IPCC scientists have left their positions. Certain Journals have maintained their connections for financial reasons. Peer review is now only possible by certain selected peers. Certain papers are automatically accepted or turned down based on the authors’ known views on the subject. The naive acceptance of such peer-reviewed literature by policymakers is a joke.
On the other hand there are hundreds of reputable atmospheric scientists who know that solar cycles control most, if not all, of earth’s temperature variation. These include the late Dr. Frederick Seitz, Nat. Academy of Sciences; Dr. John Christie, Univ. of Alabama; Dr. Roger Pielke, Univ. of Colorado; Dr. Fred Singer, Univ. of Virginia; Dr. Patrick Michaels, George Mason Univ; Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT; Dr. Ian Pilner, Univ. of Adelaide; Dr. Howard Hayden, Univ. of Connecticut; Lord Christopher Monckton, Scotland; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Poland; Dr. Bob Carter, Australia; Dr. Dick Thoenes, Eindhoven Univ; –and hundreds of others. In addition many organizations have been set up to relay truthful science to policymakers and the public including the Science and Public Policy Institute, The Center for Science and Public Policy, Friends of Science, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project. This latter group (sepp.org) and its sister organization- The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) —published it’s 2008 report: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”(nipccreport.org). It’s contributors are international unsponsored luminaries in the field and are only interested in disseminating true facts concerning climate variability and its causes.
At this point true climate science needs to overcome more than unwieldy ice cores and conflicting surface temperature data sets. They are fighting well funded zealots and governments whose motives are ideology rather than science. They are fighting a political machine including govt. sponsored websites, K-12 education programs, movies, books, and agency funded elaborate productions on the NGO channel. Prof. Howard Hayden has remarked about this “global warming pseudoscience”—-“What other basic scientific truth has ever needed $300 million to promote itself?” (that number has grown to $150 billion) We even have a cabinet level Secretary of Climate Change!
The problem is not science. The problem is getting the word out. The NIPCC 2008 report (referenced above) is impressive but lengthy. My synopsis, The IPCC Ignores Basic Chemistry And Astronomy, (viewable at https://solarvariationdeterminesclimatechange.wordpress.com) will help. We need to educate as many policymakers and science commentators as possible in this remote area of C02 solubility and Solar System astronomy.
Beside faulty chemistry and astronomy, and beyond incredibly misguided public policy—this “C02/ pollution/ global warming” pseudoscience may be the largest hoax ever foisted on the American people and the world. It ranks with “eugenics”— the pseudoscience disaster of the early 20th century. Public policy take note. Scientists take note. Unguarded science can morph into something quite different if you let it.
Robert G. Dillon, M.D.
- Dear Senator: The Pseudoscience of Global Warming
- The I.P.C.C. Ignores Basic Chemistry and Astronomy
- Where Does The CO2 GO?
- The Seven Theories of Climate Change (PDF)
- The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video)
- Dr. Battig (Power Point Presentation)
- CO2 Is Not Our Enemy. Science Proves It. (Website)
- Global Warming And The Climate (Website)