Big Science Spreading Climate Disinformation

Three kinds of deliberate misinformation (i.e., disinformation)
are being spread by Big Science and Big Media about climate change

 

 

The first form of disinformation by Big Science and Big Media is asserting that their critics are spreading disinformation. I.e., they lie by claiming the opposition is lying. Climate skeptics have good reasons to doubt the consensus. Here at CEH, we draw most of our material from mainstream journals.

The second form of disinformation by Big Science is confusing science with consensus. Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science. Scientists who question the consensus are not questioning science. Some skeptics agree that warming is occurring, but doubt that it is entirely man-caused (anthropogenic). Big Science routinely conflates those two questions. As further evidence, Big Science illustrates shallow, illogical thinking by pointing to any unusual weather as evidence of climate change. Weather anomalies have always occurred throughout human history.

The third form of disinformation is assuming that the only way to fix climate change is through draconian, global-socialist policies. They routinely dismiss free market solutions. Instead, they turn to the U.N. and W.E.F. (World Economic Forum) for ideas ranging from carbon capture methods that are expensive and unproven (with potential downsides), elimination of farms and fertilizers (which can lead to economic collapse and starvation), and redistribution of wealth (i.e., communism, which has caused more tyranny, suffering and death than any other political system). For some odd reason, their policy recommendations always benefit China, Russia and Iran, but hurt the West, especially America. Why is that?

Disinformation Hurts People and Nations

The globalists’ recommendations, such as eliminating chemical fertilizers and animal stock, have already led to political collapse in Sri Lanka and Ghana and are now causing major protests and upheavals in the Netherlands, Canada, Argentina and some African countries. These upheavals come with very real prospects of mass starvation and mass migration for millions of people. Germany is facing cold winters without power because of over-reliance on so-called “renewable energy” that is being pushed worldwide due to climate change scares. The countries striving for the highest ESG scores (Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance, a measure of conformance with the climate consensus policy recommendations) are the worst off, and the ones suffering the most there are the poor and middle classes. Sri Lanka specifically outlawed chemical fertilizers, which literally spells famine. The consensus elites don’t care. Their solutions are as unworkable as they are cruel. They wouldn’t mind if billions died to reduce human impact on the planet. Some of them think that would be a good thing, as long as they are exempted themselves.

The hypocrisy of the warmist alarmists is also on display. Working people see climate alarmists flying their private jets to world climate conferences, making a bigger carbon footprint than they ever will in their lifetime. They see America being pressured to shut down fossil fuels where it is produced cleanly, so that tyrannical countries like Russia and China can backfill the demand with dirty energy. They see the rich buying up beachfront property one day and warning about sea level rise the next. If they really wanted to persuade people, they would practice what they preach. And if they are so sure of their science, they would debate with scientists outside the consensus.

Cultists with Power

It’s no wonder that many conservatives look at what’s going on and call the alarmists a Climate Cult. In a long interview this week with global journalist Michael Yon, who has put his boots on the ground in numerous countries for decades, popular speaker and podcaster Dr. Jordan B. Peterson wags his head at what these global elitists are saying and doing. Yon is billed as “America’s most experienced combat correspondent” who “has traveled or worked in 82 countries, including various wars and conflicts.” Hearing what Yon shares from his eyeball experience, Peterson exclaims that the elitists’ utopian policies are “naive beyond belief” and “stupid and often malevolent.” Seeing what they are doing to Dutch farmers right now in the name of climate change, this well read and popular commentator cannot fathom their “globalist utopian ideologically blind stupidity.” And yet Big Science is all in with it!

Where is any major journal calling a halt to the disinformation? Where is any fair and balanced reporting? If the consensus information is so strong and self-evident, Big Science and Big Media wouldn’t mind debating it. Instead, they try to cancel anybody outside their circle. That is cultic behavior by definition.

And so we offer you alternatives straight from Big Science’s own arsenal.

Information vs Disinformation

The closest thing we come to finding sensible information—after setting aside the alarmist articles that are purely political—are scientific studies that provide specific details about factors feeding the climate consensus—both ones that support the consensus and ones that cast doubt on it. New unknowns and revisions occur regularly. Where else are you hearing about these? It’s not disinformation if we bring their own words to you. It’s information. Here, our readers can hear from both sides and decide for themselves where the best evidence is.

This issue demands everyone’s careful attention. Some globalist socialists are already acting to destroy livelihoods and nations, threatening widespread famines and economic collapse, under the excuse of “doing something” to “save the planet” from global warming. Our stance remains to examine the evidence from the journals with an open but critical mind, asking whether it truly supports the views of the radical warmists and their draconian policies. Below are a few more recent studies—all from sources that believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Keep in mind that whether warming is occurring is a separate question from evidence for man’s culpability for it; scientists agree that the earth has experienced wild climate swings in the past before humans were around. Also, what should be done about warming (climate policy) is also a separate question from whether it is occurring. The cure cannot be worse than the disease. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, agrees that humans are contributing to global warming, but he considers the issue far down on the priority list of crises that world leaders need to be addressing. And his solutions are opposite the views of the consensus warmist alarmists: Lomborg advises giving people more freedom and prosperity. Rich people, he says, solve environmental problems; poor people make them worse out of desperation. One cannot, therefore, leap from “The planet is warming!” to “Install global communism!” or to any other foolish non-sequitur.

The Latest Buzz from the Labs

Supervolcano study finds CO2 emissions key to avoiding climate disasters (Curtin University, 26 July 2022). No supervolcano eruptions have been witnessed by humans. One supervolcano can emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Obviously no scientist can measure how much, exactly, because nobody was there. Australian scientists used indirect measurements to estimate the amount of CO₂ emitted from supervolcano eruptions in western Australia, and then asserted that the CO₂ was the cause of mass extinctions. That’s a dubious conclusion because of the weakness of the proxy; also, association is not causation. But on top of that of that weakness, they asserted that “we are now currently emitting carbon dioxide 200 times faster than those supervolcanic eruptions that caused the most severe mass extinctions.” This is an unwarranted extrapolation built on a non-sequitur.

How did ancient moa survive the ice age – and what can they teach us about modern climate change? (The Conversation, 25 May 2022). One fact often forgotten by climate alarmists is that global cooling can be even more devastating for life than warming. Three Australian scientists try to figure out how giant birds called moas survived the ice age. What certainty can they derive from their suggestions, though, from bits of bones in a cave? And can anyone decide that these bits of bone teach humans today about climate change? There are far too many unknowns in this article to make definitive conclusions. One has to wonder if the authors put “climate change” in the title just for virtue signaling.

Aridity-dependent Land Surface Skin Temperature Biases in CMIP5/6 (Geophysical Research Letters, 25 July 2022). The CMIP models (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) are the gold standard for global warming projections. These authors found systematic biases in the latest two iterations. “Spatial patterns of biases remain similar in the latest CMIP6 simulations, suggesting systematic biases in land-atmosphere interactions,” the authors say. “These biases need to be corrected or considered while using models for future projections.” It’s a little too late for that. The global policy makers are already ruining countries by insisting on draconian measures like eliminating chemical fertilizers (Sri Lanka, Ghana, others) and closing cattle ranches, driving farmers out of business and threatening mass famines. Can they tell this to the Dutch farmers that are protesting similar moves there? Canada, too?

In a paradox, cleaner air is now adding to global warming (Science, 20 July 2022). Oh great. Now they tell us that “pollution … helps cool the planet.” Quick! Burn more coal—save the planet! Joking aside, this “paradox” shows how difficult it is to model climate change. People are glad to have clean air, but clean air exacerbates global warming, this article claims. Why? The atmosphere needs suspended particles to act as nuclei for precipitation. Cloud cover is also one of the most difficult factors to model; clouds not only bring rain; they reflect solar heat back to space. The declining reflectivity of pollution particles, these authors say, is making the planet hotter!

Aerosols don’t just reflect light on their own; they can also alter clouds. By serving as nuclei on which water vapor condenses, pollution particles reduce cloud droplet size and increase their number, making clouds more reflective. Reducing pollution should undo the effect—and using the same instruments, Quaas and his team found a clear decrease in cloud droplet concentrations in the same regions where aerosols declined.

It does not follow that “solar geoengineering” is the answer. Long-time alarmists like James Hansen, who urges that in this article, might think so. But watch out; others have warned that geoengineering can have unanticipated harmful consequences.

Is going meat-free the answer to climate change? (Phys.org, 22 July 2022). Barbara Intermill disputes the common myth that going without hamburgers helps the planet (e.g., University of Bath). Carbon dioxide reduction matters far more, she argues. Where’s the beef? Have some.

Why natural gas is not a bridge technology (Ruhr University Bochum, 20 July 2022). German scientists conclude that natural gas is not a bridge technology toward renewable energy.

The researchers have examined the natural gas issue from five perspectives and given gas a fairly poor climate balance, comparable to that of coal or oil. They recommend that politicians and scientists revise the current assumptions about natural gas.

What they don’t say is that Russia has cut off Germany’s natural gas supply (Nordstream 1). This puts German climate alarmists between a rock and a hard place. They still want to reduce climate change, but they face a cold winter without fossil fuels. It’s hot in summer right now, but Michael Yon tells Jordan Peterson that Germans are gathering wood in expectation of a cold winter without gas to heat their homes. Not only that, natural gas is required for the Haber process that makes nitrogen fertilizer (see Veritasium). The cutoff of this fossil fuel, which could be exported from the USA’s plentiful supplies were it not for prohibitions by the Biden administration, puts Europe at risk of massive starvation if Germans and the Dutch cannot get fertilizer for next year’s crops.

Why restoring seagrass meadows would be a huge conservation win (New Scientist, 6 July 2022). “Seagrass meadows are vanishing at a rate of 7 per cent a year, but this is a habitat that buries carbon up to 35 times faster than tropical rainforest,” writes Sophie Pavelle. “We must safeguard and restore it.” Sounds like a great idea. The earth has many natural feedback mechanisms to maintain climate. Why not go for biological solutions that offer the most bang for the buck and create jobs?

Even ‘net zero’ aviation could still cause significant global warming (New Scientist, 25 July 2022). This article illustrates the hopelessness of trying to “do something” about climate change with feel-good solutions. “Efforts to make flying greener mostly count carbon dioxide emissions only, but modelling shows this ignores 90 per cent of future flights’ contribution to climate change,” reporter Adam Vaughan writes about a paper in Nature Climate Change by Brazzola et al., 25 July 2022. So what’s the use? People are not going to stop flying, and restrictions would crash the travel industry, killing jobs and increasing poverty. Don’t expect the global leaders to set a good example, either, because their frequent international conferences score them virtue points.

This is like the reporter who was proud of her new electric car, till she was told it needed to be charged by electricity from a coal-fired power plant. If everybody were to use electric cars, demand for electricity would be several times what is now used for air conditioning. The bottom line is that electric cars could actually increase global warming more than standard cars! Remember the recycling fiasco? People who faithfully separated their trash into recycling bins found out that barges of their plastic went to China, and China stopped taking them—the plastic ended up in the ocean anyway. “For every complex problem,” H.L. Mencken quipped, “there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

An Expert Opinion Re-Heard

This December 7-11 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the final Apollo moon mission, Apollo 17. The only scientist to walk on the moon was Harvard geologist Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 lunar module pilot, who later became a US Senator. Dr Schmitt was a well-known skeptic of man-caused global warming.

At a session of the Heartland Institute’s 7th International Conference on Climate Change in June 2012, featuring 50 scientists and NASA astronauts (see YouTube; go to 28:39 through 42:30), Schmitt spoke on one of the panels. He expressed concern about a “Government-Science Complex” that had emerged after World War II, transferring most scientific funding from corporations to the federal government. This unholy alliance led to Big Science institutions wanting to please the funding source. Consequently, “Peer review is no longer peer review,” he said; “it is review by like-minded individuals.”

Schmitt was particularly concerned about the capture of most K-12 schools, most advanced education administrations and faculties, the national media and scientific societies by the Political Left. As a long-term goal, he stressed the need to recapture the K-12 education system, and return it to an “objective and knowledge-based context.”

It’s instructive to compare the comments in 2012 of this PhD scientist, US Senator and American hero with the situation today, ten years later. Even back then, Dr. Harrison Schmitt was on to what the Left was doing with climate science and scare tactics. “Climate is simply the current political horse that the statists* are riding,” said this Constitutional conservative. “They’re going to pick up another horse as soon as it’s clear they have lost this battle.”

*Statism is a synonym for global governance. A statist is one who feels that the government state should control everything.

The DeSmog page (a Canadian pro-AGW group, not a science site) about Sen. Schmitt contains videos of him speaking about climate change, and points out why he resigned The Planetary Society in 2009 because of their activism over global warming.

In his letter of resignation, Schmitt told the Planetary society that “’consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.”

Senator Schmitt’s website, America’s Common Sense, contains a diary of his Apollo memoirs, but no new entries since 2019. He is 87.

I didn’t listen to Schmitt’s speech till after I had written most of this entry. Wow! This man was perceptive and prophetic. Listen to his remarks if you can (14 min). As a highly regarded and credentialed scientist, an insider in NASA and US Senator, Schmitt knew what he was talking about. I hope the Left does not besmirch his honorable reputation at the 50th Anniversary celebrations of Apollo 17 this December, because he said he and other conservatives had already experienced the Left’s intimidation of themselves and their families for not accepting the consensus view on climate. To this day Google searches about Schmitt are quick to label him a climate “denialist” who was “mistaken” about his views. With such behavior they fit his description of their groupthink.

Note: The DeSmog website linked to above is on a mission to expose and marginalize “climate deniers” that don’t go along with the consensus. However, looking at their page on Harrison Schmitt, all they do is try the guilt-by-association with non-AGW organizations like the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers, and draw attention to the funding of those organizations. They also try to question credentials of the speakers. They never answer Schmitt’s scientific or philosophical claims. This is the common tactic of Big Science: criticize, marginalize and demonize anybody who doesn’t go along with the consensus. I urge you to listen to Schmitt and the other panelists themselves, because the Big Science consensus-only operators use the same tactics on Darwin skeptics and conservatives on every other Leftist issue. They think that “all scientists agree” (bandwagon fallacy) should be enough to create “settled science” about any subject. Here at CEH we go straight to their own mainstream sources to examine the strength of the data.

We, as responsible citizens, owe it to ourselves to separate information from disinformation. As stated in our first article of 2022 (1 Jan), one way to identify who is lying is to look for the one who refuses to debate. We want our readers to be informed. Go ahead; read the best arguments of the warmists. But also consider the soundness of their logic and evidence, and ask yourself why Big Science and Big Media are so intent on shutting up those outside the consensus.

Please look over our previous collections of scientific papers about climate change. Search on “climate change” or “global warming” for several years’ worth of articles and papers, almost all from believers in anthropogenic climate change. It would be hard to find links to this many papers and articles on climate change except right here at CEH. Here are just a few articles with multiple links inside:

Politicians Overplay Climate Science (21 July 2022)

Weekend Climate Digest (11 June 2022)

Comfort for the Climate Panicked (2 May 2022)

More Reasons to Doubt a Climate Doomsday (15 March 2022)

Climate Science Is Imprecise (18 Feb 2022)

Climate Science Is Imprecise, Cont. (19 Feb 2022)

The Climate of Science and v.v. (20 Sept 2021)

How to Avoid Climate Screams (9 Aug 2021)

Smoke Gets in the Eyes of Climatologists (7 March 2021)

The Problem with Climate Consensus (30 Nov 2020)

Is Climate Change an Existential Threat? (26 March 2020)

Climate Hysteria Goes Far Beyond the Science (11 Dec 2019)

One last point: Big Science and Big Media are incorrigibly Leftist in political bias. They despise conservatives and wish to censor them. These same people believe in molecules-to-man Darwinian evolution, materialistic origin of life without design or purpose, dark matter (95% of reality is unknown), scientism, taxpayer funding of whatever they wish to do even if it means torturing beagle puppies, pandemic lockdowns, and global governance. They promote “diversity and inclusion” policies, support radical LGBTQ activists, say America is riddled with system racism, and cannot bring themselves to criticize communist countries. They also approve of abortion on demand up to and including birth, genetic tinkering with embryos, and gay pride parades. When discussing global warming, it is vital to understand the worldview of those promoting climate hysteria.