Global warming: Science or dogma?


The Science & Environmental Policy Project is an outstanding resource for those unwilling to bury their heads in the sand and blindly accept the notion that human-caused catastrophic global warming is settled science and must be the highest priority in allocating the world’s limited economic resources.

Its April 1, 2017 issue of “The Week That Was” leads with the point that “government-funded Climate Studies have largely turned from empirical science to dogma — a belief system unsubstantiated by physical evidence.” Each week’s TWTW is chock full of commentary and links describing the latest science and other developments that challenge the climate change orthodoxy. This issue highlights the written testimony of John Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, at the March 29th hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” held by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Professor Christy’s summary of his written testimony, supported by evidence in the full statement, gives rise to serious questions about those who think the subject of catastrophic global warming is no longer open to further scientific inquiry and debate.

“Science” is not a set of facts but a process or method that sets out a way for us to discover information and which attempts to determine the level of confidence we might have in that information. In the method, a “claim” or “hypothesis” is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again. When the “scientific method” is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin…

The IPCC inadvertently provided information that supports this conclusion by (a) showing that the tropical trends of climate models with extra greenhouse gases failed to match actual trends and (b) showing that climate models without extra greenhouse gases agreed with actual trends. A report of which I was a co-author demonstrates that a statistical model that uses only natural influences on the climate also explains the variations and trends since 1979 without the need of extra greenhouse gases…

One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased “official” panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible “Red Teams” that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise. I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.

You can read Christy’s full written statement along with those of alarmist Michael Mann and two scientists who have challenged the climate change orthodoxy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

April 15, 2017 | Comments Off on Global warming: Science or dogma? | 151 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

11 Comments / 0 Comments

  1. :
    Political science.

    Abolish government funding of scientific research.

    No more NASA, NIH, NSF, etc.
    No more of this weather change baloney.

  2. xx
    Hold the phone a minute will you please, I have to take a call on the other line from someone named Gore, sort of familiar, Al Gore I think….. Thought he was hugging trees in the Sahara…….

  3. When I point out to liberals that the weather has not been getting warmer, hence the misnomer, “Global Warming,” they happily chirp — as though it were their own idea — “that’s why I call it, ‘Climate Change.'” That’s science? Especially, since they brook no opposition (no pun intended.) Reminds me of the classic chestnut I grew up with:

    “A man sold all his possessions and left his family to travel the world, because he wanted to know the meaning of life. After many years of seeking, and near despair, his last hope was a guru who lived high up on a very dangerous mountain. Up the mountain our seeker went, through a thunderstorm, tired and desperate and hungry–his food was all gone, he injured one foot but struggled on with a cane out of a tree branch. Finally, on top of the mountain, there sat the guru, surrounded by tame animals, with bright sunlight breaking through a hole in the clouds to shine all around him.

    The seeker staggered forward. “O holy guru, I have given up everything to seek the truth, but it will all be worthwhile if you can answer my question: What is the meaning of life?”

    The guru smiled and said, “My son, here is the answer you seek: Life is a fountain.”

    After a long pause, the seeker shook his head. “A fountain? I have come thousands of miles to hear your words–my possessions are all gone, I’m starving, I’ll probably die on this mountain–and all you have to say is, life is a fountain?”

    The guru trembled. “You mean…it’s not a fountain?”


    Sleeper clip (diet and tobacco)

    (Incidentally, Allen is unfair to Shanker here. These were Jewish neighborhoods that were transformed over-night and anti-semites fired all the Jewish teachers.)

    But, it’s funny, and the “science” stuff is still relevant.

    Oh, by the way, good news folks — or good and bad, depending on how you look at it — A couple of years ago, my doctor told me that I shouldn’t have more than one egg yolk a week to avoid high cholestorol. Just a couple of months ago, my doctor told me that now I can have all the egg yolks I want, it has an insignificant effect on cholestorol. They just voted on it.

    I remember in the 90s all the warning signs everywhere, men over 40 must have a prostate exam. Then, a few years ago,my doctor said, “nah, they changed their mind, other things will probably kill you first, it’s optional.”

    Whatever happened to the ozone layer?

    All the uranium that was going to leak through and outlast their protective sleeves?

    The bad news: These “scientists” — though the only game in town — aren’t really sure of anything. So, do we really need to go back to living in the stone age, surrounded by enemies as we are, because of the latest hysteria-driven scientific fad?

    It’s like all the Stalinist flip-flops of the 30s that Communists and fellow-travellers mostly switched positions to accomodate — on a dime — like pro or anti-Nazi– mostly having no idea why but struggling to stay within the crowd, everyone of them hilariously pretending to be brave, defiant, non-conformists in exactly the same cookie-cutter-like way.
    Kind of an ideological “keeping up with the Jones’s.”

  4. @ Edgar G.:

    Yup, that’d be the place.

    “Before pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera bought Current TV, the fledgling cable news network founded by former Vice President Al Gore, conservative commentator Glenn Beck had pursued purchasing the company — and was rejected.”

    Gore sues Al Jazeera America (they stiffed him, ha ha)

    Al Jazeera Counter-Sues Gore (they thumbed their nose at the stupid infidel)

    This person was almost our President! Thank God for the Electoral College!! And for George W. Bush — now, in this neck of the woods, that’s non-conformism!

    And, Thank God for President Trump. May he lead us to victory over our foes and keep us safe.

  5. “The Calcification of Climate Science”

    “…According to Lord Christopher Monckton, Thomas R. Karl’s much-feted paper refuting “the Pause,” the inexplicable 19-year standstill in the earth’s average global surface temperature, has a small problem: To disappear the warming hiatus as Karl and his co-authors purport to do, you have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics. (Not even the current president can do that.)…

    “…This would be an in-the-weeds scientific scuffle were it not that Karl is director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Center for Environmental Information and the study was the work of his outfit…”

    November 2, 2015

    Read more at:

    “Representative Joe Barton of Texas, the formidable Republican ranking member of the House climate committee, feigned astonishment. He rounded on Karl and said: “You and other officials have made repeated appearances before this committee in recent months, telling us over and over again about “global warming”. Not one of you has ever told us that there has been global cooling throughout the past seven or eight years. Why not? Or is Lord Monckton lying to us?”

    Tom Karl, who was sitting next to me, looked as though he wished the “warming” Earth would swallow him up. He shifted from one well-padded butt-cheek to the other. He harrumphed, “Er, ah, well, that is, we wouldn’t have quite – oof – um – done the calculations that way, aaahh… We wouldn’t have averaged the anomalies from – umf – multiple datasets with different fields of coverage, err – aaagh…”

    “…Karl also took issue with my having told the committee there had been no particular trend in landfalling U.S. hurricanes over the past 100 years. He was carrying a vast artist’s portfolio of charts about with him. He flipped it open and said, “You’re wrong.”

    “No,” I said, “I’m right.”

    He pointed to the graph. I was indeed wrong. Karl’s graph showed no trend in landfalling hurricanes not only for 100 years but for 150 years. His face fell, then brightened again: “Ah,” he said, “but just look at how tropical storms have increased in the past 30 years!”

    “You know perfectly well,” I replied, “that that apparent increase is merely an artifact of the satellite coverage that began 30 years ago. Before then, you knew if a hurricane had hit you, but you would probably not be able to detect every tropical storm…”


  6. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    “To disappear the warming hiatus as Karl and his co-authors purport to do, you have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics. (Not even the current president [Obama] can do that.)…

    But NYC can. For example, The City Council is presently considering a bill — which the NY Times has officially endorsed — to repeal the law of gravity. Somebody realized that if Sir Isaac Newton had travelled to the present and ridden our buses and subways before going back and throwing that apple up in the air, he wouldn’t even have bothered as he would have realized that what goes up does not necessarily come back down — or at least, not in a timely fashion. No, he mostly likely would have seen a glowing sign in the sky reading, “15 minutes plus layover in terminal” or, just, “Delay.”

    But, seriously:

    “NOAA refutes link between global warming and hurricanes”

    April 6, 2017 by Michael Bastasch,

    “…The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently posted a summary of research on the link between global warming and hurricanes, concluding it is “premature” to say human activities are making storms more powerful.

    “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming – have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity,” reads the research summary put together by NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

    “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled,” reads NOAA’s research summary.

    The research, last updated in March 2017, reaffirms findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century..”””

    So Obama’s and Trump’s NCOAA say opposite things. Can Science be politicized like the Attorney General’s Office under, Holder or Lynch say, versus Sessions?


    So, you see, there is no basis for doubt or questioning of any kind.


  7. When I first settled in Manchester in the late 60’s my Liy of the Valley to my the chagrin only appeared for the beginning of JUNE a month late on the traditiona French May Day presents thereof.. Now these thre years the Lily of the Valley are out in Manchester in the week pre May Day !
    GLOBAL WARMING IS OBSERVEABLE AND NOT DOGMA – or as Galileo noted of the Copenicus theory,”E Por se Move,” and the Church burning Giordano Bruno for the sake of proving, “Transubstantiation,” did nothing to stop the emergence of atomic theory.

  8. @ Frank Adam: Good point. Conservatives only damage their own cause by trying to deny reality, and denying the conclusions reached by an overwhelming consensus of scientific researchers about climate issues is a form of reality denial. It is similar to the denial of evolution by Christian and some Jewish religious fundamentalists and adherents to Biblical ‘inerrancy.” Only climate-change-denial is motivated by economic-commercial concerns, not religious concerns. Conservatives seriously and unnecessarily damage they own cause by denying climate change reality, since for the public it calls in question their judgment and even motives. Ditto for pro-Israel advocates. Pro-Israel advocates also make a big mistake by parroting all of the views of American conservatives, even when they have no connection with Jewish rights (such the right of self-determination) and security.

    The fact that most leftists are anti-Semitic bastards does not mean that they are wrong about everything, or much the less that rightists are right about everything. It is necessary to examine each issue on its merits. Unfortunately, no Americans do this. There is a “package” of views that all leftists accept and another “package” that most rightists accept–even though both packages include issues that are unrelated to each other and views that are not logically consistent with each other. This knee-jerk partylineism is a threat to democracy, rational discourse and rational decision-making.

Comments are closed.