Climate Science Riddled With Dishonesty, Incompetence & Fear

earth burning up

The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science.

Tony Heller has exposed some of the egregious dishonesty of mainstream environmentalists in a video he’s titled: “My Gift To Climate Alarmists.”

Environmentalists and their political allies attribute the recent increase in deadly forest fires to global warming.

However, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, forest fires reached their peak in the 1930s and have declined by 80% since then.

Environmentalists hide the earlier data and make their case for the effects of global warming by showing the public and policymakers data from 1980 that shows an increase in forest fires.

Climate scientists claim that rising sea levels are caused by man-made global warming.

Historical data from the tide gauge in Lower Manhattan shows that sea levels have been rising from about the time when Abraham Lincoln was president to now.

Heller says that sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. He points out that anthropologists believe that when the sea level was very low people were able to walk from Siberia to North America.

Hot weather is often claimed to be a result of man-made climate change. Heller presents data showing the number of days in Waverly, Ohio, above 90 degrees.

In 1895, there were 73 days above 90 degrees. In 1936, there were 82 days above 90 degrees. Since the 1930s, there has been a downward trend in the number of days above 90 degrees.

If climatologists hide data from earlier years and start in 1955, they show an increase in the number of above-90-degree days from eight or nine to 30 or 40.

Thus, to deceive us into thinking the climate is getting hotter, environmentalists have selected a starting date that fits their agenda.

You might ask: “Who is Tony Heller? Does he work for big oil?” It turns out that he is a scientist and claims to be a lifelong environmentalist.

https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/

From what I can tell, he has no vested interests. In that respect, he is different from those who lead the environmental movement, who often either work for or are funded by governments.

Once in a while, environmentalists reveal their true agenda.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, speaking in 2010 advised:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the (capitalist) economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Christine Stewart, Canada’s former Minister of the Environment said: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. … Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the person most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Protocol said:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Not all scientists are dishonest and not all news reporters are leftists with an agenda. But one wonders at the deafening silence where there’s clear, unambiguous evidence.

For example, if ocean levels have been rising for some 20,000 years, why do scientists allow environmentalists to get away with the claim that it’s a result of man-made global warming?

Why aren’t there any reporters to highlight leftist statements such as those by Edenhofer, Stewart, and others who want to ride global warming as a means to defeat capitalism and usher in socialism and communism?

I would prefer to think that the silence of so many scientists represent their fears as opposed to their going along with the environmental extremist agenda.

Read more at Daily Signal


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Andy Rowlands

    |

    Some scientists are undoubtedly firm believers in AGW, and as such are happy to go along with the eco-fascist agenda aimed at bringing down Capitalism, others I suspect remain silent because they are in fear of losing their funding and their jobs if they speak out against the alarmists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Walter:
    The absolute worst case of professional incompetence and dishonesty is in the area of climate science.

    James:
    I think meteorology is worse:

    None of this is anything new. Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. That was true then and continues to be true now. Meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms have always maintained three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.

    In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    Their silence is the same as enabling. The fear that they face is real but silence in the inappropriate response. Things will get worse. Hitler was, at first, surrounded by people who didn’t fully believe in his agenda. Their silence supported him in his uprising. How did those people feel about the concentration camps starting and they had an opportunity to maybe deter it from happening. It’s the same thing here. The waters were tested to see if it is time to commit mass murder in the name of climate change when they made that “study” on asthma inhalers causing climate change.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    I wish climate skeptics would quit repeating the lies about Ottmar Edenhofer. He didn’t say the juicy things they wish he said. He said something entirely different, and it’s been twisted and taken out of comment for a killer soundbyte against the IPCC, but in the end it damages their credibility and is a V for the IPCC.

    Here’s a good explanation:

    https://www.quora.com/Where-do-climate-change-deniers-get-their-science/answer/Tom-Watkins-11

    Reply

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      Edenhofer is a key player in forcing the IPCC nonsense. He believes CO2 is bad for the climate. He has zero science background. He favors his political agenda over truth and reality.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via