Why Real Scientists Mistrust ‘Climate Science’

Written by John O'Sullivan

The biggest mistake made by supporters of the ‘consensus’ for man-made climate alarm is believing that government climate science has standing in the wider scientific community. It doesn’t. Below we explain why.

First, most people do not realize that the history of climate science – as taught in schools and universities and spoken about in a quiescent press – is less science, more propaganda. The narrative sold is that climate research is a long-established, prestige discipline which is composed of elite experts espousing long-accepted scientific proofs on how our climate works. This myth is not only laughable but is readily exposed when the diligent reader performs their own research.

Second, the public has been lied to about the very basis of such science. The Big Lie is about the ‘heat trapping’ properties of that ‘deadly gas’ carbon dioxide (CO2). This benign trace gas is actually plant food; it is pumped into greenhouses to boost plant yield – hardly a poison then. But to the climate crazy gang it is the control knob in the ‘settled science’ of greenhouse gas theory.

Climate Study is an Infant Science

Scratching the fake veneer we see that all through the 20th Century climate science per se wasn’t even a recognized discipline in ANY university for which a budding scientist could study for – and earn – a university degree. Not until after the dawn of the 21st Century was a university degree course in climatology open to students.

In 2010, checking around the world’s top centers of learning, we saw there were NO science graduates with a first degree in the field of climatology. Even in Britain, the birthplace of climate research and one of the top nations for investment in climate studies, there are very scant pickings if you want to become a student of climate science.

The University of East Anglia (UEA), the UK’s most prestigious university for Environmental Sciences – a position it has held for the last 30 years – did not open its doors to student applications for a degree in climatology until September 2010. This is the very institution long relied upon by the UN to be a key repository of the worlds’ official temperature records. Meanwhile, the only other UK academic institution to advertise courses in climate study was Bangor University which offered merely a ‘part time evening course’ in climatology that has a duration of only ’10 weeks.’

Criminal Destruction of Data by Academics

But the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is discredited as a bastion of reliable, solid science. It has earned infamy and scorn for betraying its role as a trusted international repository of records of global temperatures. We know its chief scientist, Professor Phil Jones admitted wrongdoing in that regard. At the height of the Climategate scandal (2009) Jones was exposed in the national press over the loss and destruction of important records that proved global cooling. It seems Jones wanted to ‘hide the decline’ in global warming so he simply got rid of swathes of inconvenient data – an unforgivable loss to all science. Amazingly, Jones kept his job. But then his employers were always happy with his cherry-picking methods. His politicized brand of alternative facts feeds a trillion dollar multi-national fraud with the ‘evidence’ it needs to tax the world into energy poverty.

Jones literally is as subjective and fanatical in his beliefs as any one those crazed climate activists who ‘march for science’ demanding governments cut ‘carbon emissions’ to save the planet. In 2009 Jones only escaped criminal prosecution because the short six-month statute of limitations had already expired before his crimes were exposed. Is that the kind of scientist ordinary taxpayers want running a key United Nations center for climate study?

Whenever skeptics have tried to persuade government climate ‘experts’ like Dr Jones to show the data and calculations proving their alarmist claims are scientifically rigorous and testable they are met with insults and refusal. Anyone questioning the orthodoxy is routinely told “you’re not qualified to dispute this, you’re not even a climate scientist!”

My colleagues from the ‘hard’ sciences tell me this brand of secret science betrays everything the traditional scientific method stands for. In 2010 I wrote:

“We saw that Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the much-touted 2010 ‘independent’ British report [1] into the Climategate scandal found that innumerate, cherry-picking climate scientists hyped up their global warming theory with unsubstantiated “subjective” claims. He officially recommended that skilled statisticians be brought in to hold the hand of these “climate experts. “

These “experts” systematically re-wrote the laws of chemistry and physics to describe carbon dioxide (CO2) as a “heat trapping” gas that is the control knob of earth’s climate. Weird that, because scientists working in industry or the applied sciences know that CO2 is one of the BEST gases used for COOLING things. In industry it has stood the test of time as one of the top, most effective refrigerant gases for almost a century.

Indeed, there is not one single industrial or applied science application anywhere on planet earth where CO2 is used to trap heat or delay cooling. Why not? Simply check the many science links here.

Peer-reviewed journals are now starting to admit the carbon dioxide-driven greenhouse gas theory is junk science. Last month the Sage Journal Energy & Environment published two papers proving as much.

The first paper ‘Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change‘ exposes the fraud about carbon dioxide. Those scientists found that:

“Understanding the correct role that atmospheric carbon dioxide plays in climate change removes the need for costly and ineffective measures to either contain human emissions or reduce the atmospheric content by artificial means.”

The second paper, ‘Role of greenhouse gases in climate change‘  found that:

“Ongoing alarm concerning human emissions of carbon dioxide into earth’s atmosphere depends on such emissions “enhancing” a supposed “greenhouse effect”. Such an effect has never been observed and thus, without such an effect, there is no need for climate alarm over human emissions of carbon dioxide.”

Now you can begin to understand why climate scientists are not rated highly by other scientists. It is no wonder climate science is mocked – it relies utterly on a pseudo-scientific theory called the radiative greenhouse gas effect which is pure tautology. In rhetoric ‘tautology’ is defined as using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct. We never have and never will get a detailed scientific explanation of the “greenhouse gas” effect (GHE) because for climatologists to seek one would require them to dissect it, thus exposing the truth;  it hangs on nothing of any substance.

With much input from my scientific colleagues (some of whom had worked on NASA’s Apollo space program) we ran a series of articles that provided a different back story to climate science than the one spun about “deadly” CO2. We saw that the idea of a GHE driven by carbon dioxide was re-invented in the late 1970’s after being widely accepted in science as being abandoned before 1950. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) reported then that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” [2]

Carbon dioxide has been proven empirically from extensive use in industrial refrigeration for over the last century to be one of nature’s most powerful coolants. Independent climate researchers have shown it can only cool the climate, too.

Natural global cooling, not man-made global warming is the real theat. Solar scientists (not to be confused with climate scientists) say soon we may be entering a new ice age.


[1] Lord Ronald Oxburgh’s independence is questionable insofar as he is heavily financially involved in renewables investments. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldprivi/92/92.pdf

[2]  Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.


Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Chris Reeve


    Making matters yet worse, the idea that Venus is a greenhouse was actually tested with the Venus Pioneer mission, and the data returned back from multiple instruments all agreed that it could not be true. Rather than accept those results, they corrected the dataset.

    “The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of co2.”

    (H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, and V. E. Suomi, “Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus,” _Icarus_ 61, p521-538 (1985))

    This is a very important lead because it brings us back to the early history of the greenhouse model idea, when it was proposed as a way to discredit Velikovsky’s successful prediction that Venus should be hot. What has been completely forgotten by now is how V knew that.

    Why Venus is Not a Greenhouse

    Immanuel Velikovsky


Leave a comment