By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

Global Warming Meets the Zombies! By James Reed

     In general, I do not like the Affirmative Right site much, mainly beginning with the name, which immediately links to “affirmative action” in my mind, rightly or wrongly. Then there are articles that to my troubled brain are just plain wrong. But, then there are real gems of articles, sheer magic. Like this one, thrashing the very idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW):

“Belief in the dangers of AGW has led to the emergence of “climate change science,” an interdisciplinary field that is very different from the natural sciences. Whole regular scientists rely on objective, empirical methods to test hypotheses, climate change scientists, on the other hand, manipulate data to fit preconceived beliefs; they are trained to ignore hypotheses challenging the AGW status quo, no matter how plausible. In the natural sciences, governments fund different avenues of research; in climate change science, only AGW receives funding because it is “politically correct.” Climate change scientists are expected to uncover positive correlations between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature; if they cannot find one, it will have to be manufactured out of thin air. Not only is there no research money for those seeking alternative explanations of climate change, but any attempt at falsifying the AGW hypothesis is considered a kind of heresy.

Those who question the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) findings are dismissed as cranks who are challenging a well-established scientific “consensus.” Exactly the same state of affairs exists in the field of differential psychology, where exploration of racial and sexual differences in g-factor intelligence are actively discouraged. As this shows, climate change science has more in common with Lysenkoism than actual science. In true Soviet style climate change scientists are not above using ad hominem rhetoric to silence legitimate debate. Geologists and other researchers who disagree with AGW are dismissed as “climate deniers,” even though no scientifically literate person denies that the climate always changes. In 2008, NASA’s James Hansen, whose testimony before US Congress in 1988 began the AGW scare, effectively called for Soviet-style show trials by demanding that fossil fuel company CEOs be tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” Prosecution for thought-crime is apparently warranted just by a simple refusal to accept the mainstream “consensus” on AGW.

In 2014, the pro-AGW documentary Merchants of Doubt smeared noted American physicist Fred Singer as a “liar.” Singer threatened to sue the film director for libel. In 2009, a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was hacked and thousands of emails were leaked. These emails revealed a world seldom seen by the public, where manipulation of data and wilful suppression of evidence had replaced scientific objectivity. Free from the glare of public scrutiny, the CRU disregarded scientific method in pursuit of a political agenda. The emails tell a tale of corruption at the highest levels of academia. In one email, a climate change scientist who had uncovered a decreasing trend in Northern Hemispheric temperatures was told to “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick.” By padding the trend with “instrumental” or thermometer data, the proxy temperature record was adjusted to reflect mainstream “consensus.”

In other emails, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were routinely evaded and incriminating emails hurriedly deleted. Scientists who disagreed with the CRU were ridiculed and bullied. The scandal, known as “Climategate,” revealed a conspiracy among scientists to feed biased information to the IPCC. In the aftermath, the CRU’s top scientists narrowly escaped criminal prosecution because of a legal technicality. In addition to its proponents’ questionable conduct, there are numerous problems with the evidence of AGW. Environmental activists typically rely on scientific “consensus” and Mann’s “hockey stick” to prove it. Claims of overwhelming scientific “consensus” on AGW are sourced from Cook et al. (2013), a team of volunteers affiliated with, a pro-AGW website. The study supposedly found that 97% of the scientific community endorsed AGW. Re-analysis of the data revealed significant bias and unrepresentative sample sizes. Cook et al. had excluded 75% of all papers discussing climate change. Geologists have long known about climatic fluctuations across geological and evolutionary timescales, but studies from geology and other earth sciences were woefully undersampled.

Cook and his team of volunteers were taken to task for mistaking “a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement” (Tol, 2014). Mann’s iconic “hockey stick” (1998), the centerpiece of the IPCC’s case for AGW, ignited a firestorm of controversy and debate in the early 2000s, thanks to the efforts of Canadian researchers McIntyre and McKitrick. The original graph showed Northern Hemispheric mean temperature increasing dramatically after the early 1900s; this rising trend, when depicted graphically, resembled a “hockey stick.” McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) re-analyzed Mann’s data, concluding that it was “primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” They also uncovered a late 15th century “Medieval Warming Period,” when temperatures were higher than they are now. Mann was criticized for using a computer algorithm that “mined for hockey stick shapes and overstated their dominance in the underlying data patterns” (McKitrick, 2014). His proxy temperature data for the “hockey stick” was based on tree ring analysis, which does not produce accurate results because ring width is influenced by soil conditions, amount of sunlight and rainfall, humidity, and CO2 availability. These effects must be disentangled before the data can be properly interpreted.

The IPCC believes that rising anthropogenic CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity; if the ocean can’t absorb excess CO2, it remains trapped in the atmosphere with nowhere to go. As climate physicist Edwin X. Berry pointed out (2019), if this were true, concentration of atmospheric CO2 would be many times higher than it is now, given average CO2 variation across geological and evolutionary timescales. The IPCC apparently believes that anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 have the same molecular formulas but different molecular structures, a preposterous assumption that violates the laws of chemistry and physics. The most accurate models always supply us with an explanation that best fits the data. Berry’s simple mathematical model “shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow.” After nuclear testing during the 1950s and 60s, there was a temporary accumulation of CO14 (a carbon atom with 14 oxygen atoms) in the atmosphere, which eventually dissipated after 1970. In order for the Bern model to be correct, this man-made CO14 would have remained trapped in the atmosphere. The data shows this to be false, forcing us to conclude that Berry’s “physics model” is the most accurate explanation.

AGW is clearly not supported by the data, so what causes rising average global temperatures? There is evidence that climate change is affected by solar magnetic flux, although the precise mechanism is still under debate. The most common theory suggests an inverse correlation between sunspot activity and cosmic ray intensity. During low sunspot activity, expansion of the sun’s corona produces faster and stronger solar winds. These shield the heliosphere from interstellar cosmic rays, which are needed for ionization of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere. If ionization fails to produce enough charged particles, there is less formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CNNs), the “surface” area for water vapor condensation. Without sufficient cloud cover, incoming solar radiation will raise average global temperature because it is not being reflected back into outer space (Svensmark, 2019). Environmentalists like to believe that there is a climate “control knob,” but we have as much control over the climate as King Canute of England had over the tides. AGW is a malicious fraud based on spurious correlation and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.”

     The sheer power of the reasoning in smashing climate change, and defending our consumer way of life is delightful, and I take off my hat to the author. I would suggest that denying climate science be taken as the distinguishing feature of the Dissent Right, even over race/immigration and economics stuff. On this issue we can stand as one, even with Donny Trump.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 04 July 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.