Calling Out the Climate Alarmists

While the climate alarmists and their supporters in the mainstream media continue to dish up their doom and gloom scenarios, more sober voices are making it clear that this may be one of the biggest scams of our lifetime. It seems this alarmism has been as much about pushing agendas as it has been about anything else, and many are now calling it out.

The evidence seems to be contradicting what the sky-is-falling crowd have been telling us, and it may well be time to give this whole matter a rest. Various folks have recently been speaking out on this. So let me offer some of this expert opinion, beginning with one of the big names in the environmentalist movement, Patrick Moore.

climate 4He of course was a founder of Greenpeace in the early 70s, and a leading environmentalist. But he has since moved away from both the radical environmental movement in general, and the climate alarmists in particular. Three years ago he produced a book outlining his major shift on all this. See my review here:

He has been in Australia recently and he continues to try to speak some sense on these issues. One newspaper article says this in part:

“If you want to see rapid change, look at the end of the glaciation period when the climate suddenly changed into this interglacial period we’re in now. For most of the history of modern life, it has been much warmer,” he says. Dr Moore says a warmer planet would not disadvantage humans or most other species. Some might suffer, but only because they have evolved to cope with 2.5 million years of cold. Asked whether he is concerned that a rapid climate shift could trigger massive upheaval of the species we know, he says, “the real problem would be if it gets colder”.
And he says CO2 has been demonised as toxic when it is “without doubt the most important food for life on earth. If there wasn’t carbon dioxide in sufficient quantity in our atmosphere, it would be a dead planet. The optimum CO2 concentration for plant growth is about four times the current level, he says, and concentrations 20 times higher would not be considered harmful on submarines or spacecraft. “Global CO2 was at (that level) during the Cambrian explosion, when modern life emerged.

Moore is certainly not alone in his scepticism. Consider also John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, who believes the whole thing is a ‘lie’:

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’ He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years.”

A third voice has also slammed this alarmist campaign, labelling a massive fraud:

Climate alarmism is “the biggest fraud in the field of science” and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9. “Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it,” Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. “I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion.”
Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact – but also as even qualifying as an actual “theory”: “In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn’t know what it means to be a theory,” says Cunningham who has a B.S. in Physics (with honors) from University of California at Los Angeles and an M.S., with distinction; Institute of Geophysics And Planetary Sciences, with completed work on Doctorate in physics with exception of thesis.
“If we go back to the warmist hypothesis – not a theory, but, a hypothesis- they’ve been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth’s temperature. So, as I’ve looked into those, that’s the problem that I’ve found, because I didn’t find any of those to be correct – and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at.”

And it appears that there are many others who agree with these three. Last year a survey found that a majority of scientists are sceptical about the climate warming scenario:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these sceptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.

And, plenty of data can be provided here. A report which has just come out tells us that the US is enjoying its coolest year on record. And this is all part of a two decade trend:

Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend, defying alarmist global warming predictions and debunking claims that warmer winters are causing environmental catastrophe. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995. The two decades of cooling temperatures defy alarmist assertions that global warming is causing warmer winters.

Sorry, but I cannot buy all the alarmist scare-mongering. I will stick with Moore when he says that a “powerful convergence of interests” is pushing this agenda, and we need to reject the anthropogenic line. He says, “Of course I believe in climate change. It’s been happening since the beginning of the Earth. But that doesn’t mean we’re causing it.”

[1225 words]

21 Replies to “Calling Out the Climate Alarmists”

  1. but there is a human caused hole in the ozone layer, isn’t there? Or have we been fooled with that one too?

  2. Dr Moore was on the Bolt Report last Sunday and was quite compelling.

  3. The amount of documentation that has been created for businesses all round the world, by this warming scam, is phenomenal. Environmental policies, carbon dioxide footprints, assessments, measurements, predictions, fines, fees, charges, you name it and someone has created it. Our cars in the UK get road-taxed according to the amount of CO2 they emit—and of course the charges go up every year or so. My parents used to joke that “one day they’ll tax the air you breathe”….little did they know how right they were.

    Someone dreamed up a way to con the public into believing that we were all going to suffocate under a carbon dioxide blanket. In Britain some of our power stations are being forcibly closed by European Union regulations, to be replaced by—-well, nothing much, at present, bar some brainless ideas about running the country on wind turbines and hot air (with most of the hot air being generated in Westminster and Whitehall).

    The whole thing has gone berserk and we badly need some intelligent influential people to step up and take the whole shoddy show down.

  4. I am not a scientist in any shape or form, but for many years now I have been convinced that this whole global warming as caused by human CO2 producing activities was a scam for a very simple reason, which is this:
    With all its human caused increases of CO2 we still were only responsible for 3% of the total CO2 generation. The other 97% were naturally produced by volcanos, ocean releases, earth releases etc. we were told. To me it was inconceivable that these releases combined would be perfectly the same year in year out, decades after decades, millennium after millennium. There would be fluctuations of probably at least 1% to 3%, may be more. If the global temperature system was as sensitive to CO2 as was claimed the earth temperature would rapidly swing from overheating to freezing. As the global temperature is relatively stable my non-scientific mind told me that the global temperature was not very sensitive to CO2 fluctuations which has proofed correct.

  5. When the same kinds of people who joyfully support mass infanticide and ceaselessly work towards Euthanasia, the destruction of marriage, the outlawing of Christianity, the legalisation of drugs and of prostitution, etc start demanding more money and government power to “save the world before it’s too late”, anyone with discernment needs to start using it.

    And Christians of all people ought to realise that these people trying to “save the world” are not trying to save it for Christians to live and participate in.

    Localised communism promised utopia and murdered a good hundred million people. Imagine what the UN types and their global version of the same sick anti-Christ ideology will achieve!

  6. Thanks Bill.
    Perhaps the saddest part about all the climate hysteria is how some supposed Christian organisations have made it a ‘key issue’.
    They use the Word of God to push this baloney and keep Christians from focusing on far more serious matters.

    Micah Challenge, ‘Hope for Creation’- I’m referring to you.
    Please stop pretending that this is an issue close to Gods heart and should therefore be at the forefront of our Christian concerns.

    Do you have any ‘Hope for Creation’ campaigns focusing on reducing the abortion rate?
    Sorry but I didn’t see it amongst any of your ‘key issues’ or even anywhere on any of your websites.

    You do think that dead humans are more important than
    dead trees don’t you?

    We’ve already had well over 5 millions babies murdered through abortion, when do you suppose you might start ‘hoping’ for them?

  7. Bill. Thanks for drawing attention to this, and yes, next to the theory of evolution AGW is indeed “one of the biggest scams of our lifetime”. We need to keep on opposing both in the interests of truth and for the lies they perpetuate. Both are inspired by, and promoted by, atheists. Neither have a shred of real scientific proof, and its good that real scientists are beginning to predominate in the debate.

    The AGW scam would be OK if it remained a harmless theory, but of course it is not, for in many countries it forms the basis of public policy on the production of energy. For example the UK is committed to the notorious Climate Change Act prescribing an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions target by 2050, which is driving our energy policy.

    The operation of this mad policy is that the high cost of energy and the shutting down of coal mining and natural gas power stations for the supposed danger of carbon emissions, is crippling our industries (as it is aimed to do by the EU). But worse, the tragedy is that thousands of people die of hypothermia every winter in the UK because they cannot afford to heat their homes, due to this vindictive and punitive policy. So it is the poor who are hit the hardest – and all for an empty and godless ideology.

  8. I just shake my head at this idocy.

    As if humans can shape or alter the mighty forces of nature that determine climate (not weather).

    CO2 is a ‘trace’ gas in the atmosphere.

    Last year somebody did an unscientific survey of educated people in Brisbane (I think) asking them what was the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The majority thought it was over 20 per cent though a few opined it was over 70 per cent.

    It’s actually 0.04 percent.


  9. Annette. I fully agree with your serious point:
    “Perhaps the saddest part about all the climate hysteria is how some supposed Christian organisations have made it a ‘key issue’.” There is no comparison between the value of human life and the abortion issue and the AGW scam, and in the order of priorities – the former must always be much closer to the heart of God. However, In terms of a Christian world-view and the role of Christian apologetics in opposing prevailing atheistic and evolutionary/materialistic views, then opposition to the AGW scam is important. Fortunately many Christian thinkers including scientists are engaged in this particular battle. (Answers In Genesis, and Creation Ministries International, to name but two). The AGW delusion is purportedly driven by a concern for the welfare of the “environment”, but the intention of its promoters are not confined to that by any means. They are political also, to undermine and to eventually cripple industrially and commercially the economic power and success of the West via the ‘New World Order’, and in Europe via the European Union using binding legislation.

    But for the Christian there is a deeper issue involved is there not? It touches on who is the creator and sustainer of this universe and world? Having excluded God from his thinking modern man, and governments, have substituted ‘the environment’ at the centre of their world-view, in place of God himself. Thus and sadly, it is only ‘the environment’ and this physical world that man has left. That is a form of idolatry.

    But, the author of the book of Hebrews tells us that it is “by faith” (Heb.11:3) that we understand the fact of God’s great creative act in the first place, and secondly that he upholds “all things by his mighty Word (Jesus Christ).

    We cannot escape the collision of these two mutually exclusive world-views, and faithfulness to God calls us to stand firm on Scripture’s witness to God as Creator and sovereign Lord of all creation. I’m sure you agree that abortion is not separate from our Christian world-view – we oppose abortion on many grounds, but not least because all human life is God’s gift, and we are made in God’s image – far more important than any theoretical environmental issues!

  10. sue barber at 28.10.14 / 4pm

    but there is a human caused hole in the ozone layer, isn’t there? Or have we been fooled with that one too?

    The best that we can estimate is that whatever the “ozone hole” did was contrary to whatever was supposed to happen with “climate change” – so the two were in opposition to each other.

    Thus, at least one of, and possibly both of, these ideas were wrong.

  11. The other big news is that climate sensitivity has now shown to be less than was previously thought. The IPCC estimates around 2.0 – 4.5 C for estimated increases in CO2 by the end of the century. Well taking the IPCC climate assumptions for granted there have been many papers putting that sensitivity much closer to the lower range and below.

    This means that the damage from CO2 will be no where near as severe as once thought and may even be beneficial (see the work of the economist and IPCC reviewer Richard Tol). Even if there is some damage it is far more cost effective to just adapt rather than actually mitigate the release of CO2.

    “Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.

    The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.”

  12. I do not subscribe to the evolution/long ages paradigm because it is a lie & this GW fear campaign is predicated on that lie.
    It is as much a lie that science has proven GW as it has proven evolution because the science itself say’s it hasn’t & there are thousands of scientists worldwide to argue that it hasn’t & can’t. The same for man-made GW.
    Here’s the hypocrisy:
    An evolutionist embraces an ever-changing process where there is no moral, ethical or physical boundaries, only progress for some or extinction for others, all things being equal. So why so high a campaign on stopping this, it’s only natural!?
    Even if climate is changing, it has happened before.
    Our Saviour is there to meet us whatever happens & what is to happen (yet) is far worse than a change in temp., but with a promised outcome. Hallelujah!!

  13. If you want to have a bit of fun, start asking people what they think should be done about Di-hydrogen Monoxide. Tell them that, among other things, is is the main component of acid rain, can cause severe burns, is found in excised tumours and nuclear power stations. (Google it for a more complete list.)
    See if they think it should be banned.

  14. Sue Barber has raised a reality of great significance; Public perception of real environmental risk levels can be completely out of order. Recent excitement within the media about the subject has greatly encouraged the number of ignorant worry warriors, the over simplified football game playing in politics, the lowering level of competent science within key government ranks and the risk of more of the same. I will attempt to address this very issue at ISCAST in May in Geelong. Like Moore some of our oldest members have been involved in early key conservation organisations and will continue to insist that the ongoing misinvestment and worry is due to an going lack of respect for sound science and technical competency. This very day the politicians vote on many carbon farming initiatives that will not work but sound good enough to them to spend more of our taxes on.

  15. Hi Bill
    As a result of the belief in GW, There is now a whole new industry to reverse this alarming trend. The wholesale dumping of chemicals from high flying airplanes (Chem trails) has as its goal to blanket the earth in a cloud, thus supposedly reducing the atmospheric temperature.
    Your readers can find plenty of information on the internet by googling “Chem Trails”.

  16. Greetings Bill. Your prolific and prodigious output continues to astound me.

    One of the disappointing aspects of this climate debate is that it can tend to bring out intemperate language, from both sides. For instance, it’s regrettable that Simon felt the need to characterize those who believe in anthropogenic climate change as subscribing to “the same sick anti-Christ ideology” that caused communists to murder “a good hundred million people”. To vilify those who disagree with one’s own viewpoint by likening them to anti-Christ mass-murderers would seem somewhat immoderate. It’s equally disappointing that Graham chose to equate a belief in human induced climate change to “a form of idolatry” based on “an empty and godless ideology”.

    This sort of demeaning and insulting stereotyping is less than helpful (and certainly less than charitable). If, in the fullness of time, it should ultimately and conclusively transpire that human activity has played no part whatsoever in climate change, this will simply mean that anthropogenic proponents were wrong. It will not mean they were empty, godless, idolatrous pro-communists.

    There are some highly dubious dichotomies at play here. You can be a Christian, or a conservationist, but not both. (Or in the form of a question, are there any conservative conservationists out there?) One who is a Christian cannot also be a unionist or Labor politician (see Keir Hardie). You can be a Christian or a social justice activist, but not both (see Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect; see Archbishops Oscar Romero, Helder Camara, Desmond Tutu and Janani Luwum).

    But the dichotomy that seems to predominate among some of the correspondents is that you can’t be both pro- conservation and pro-life. If you believe in human induced climate change, it appears to automatically follow that you must be pro-abortion. The logic of this linkage is elusive, but I think I have a term for it: presumption- and prejudice- based pigeonholing.

    So what about my own pigeonhole? For the record, I am pro-life, and pro-life. That means the lives of the unborn, and the life of the planet of which God appointed us the stewards. If we were to be given a report card on our stewardship so far, I suspect “can do a lot better” would be the best we could hope for.

    I am neither an alarmist or a denier. I’m a concerned cautionist. The weather bureau has just announced we’ve had our hottest October in 53 years. Of course, this doesn’t prove the increased heat has been due to human activity. Nor, by itself, does it prove the globe is getting warmer. But it’s one significant, verifiable fact which, taken together with many others, may perhaps tend to lead us cautiously in a particular direction.

    There have been, and will be, of course, many assertions to the contrary. So what we have here is a vigorous contest of ideas and viewpoints. But what I hope we don’t have are any dogmatic foregone conclusions that can be expressed as articles of a semi-blind faith that is shaped more by an unbending ideological certitude than a willingness to consider all the inconvenient evidence as well as the convenient. And this of course applies to all sides, including concerned cautionism.

    Rowan Forster.

  17. I’d like to contribute to this debate by saying that my wife & I have endeavoured to manage our house & garden in an organic manner for the past 11 years. As Christians it seems only logical to respect our Creator by doing the best to look after what is around us. At times it grieves me to see the earth plunded & polluted. I believe Jesus is coming back, things will change, but until then I will do my best to look after what has been entrusted to me.

  18. Man-made GW ‘the biggest scam in science’? Big, true, but by no means the worst scamI
    If you can believe that life & consciousness etc are only the accidental side-effect of a random ‘Big-Bang’ in nothing[much]; chance chemical soup & trillions of overwhelmingly negative genetic mutations – then real, observable, testable science has long fled…..
    But the two scams are linked, with mankind either imagining we are in control of the planet, or ‘Mother Gaia’ will shuck us off in favour of ants, or whatever…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *