NOAA Scientist Turns Climate Skeptic, Exposes Censorship & Bias
The “science is settled” alarmist media don’t want people to know there are scientists, even award-winning ones, who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming.
Because outlets ignore and censor such scientists, curious individuals must turn to other sources such as English journalist James Delingpole’s columns or podcast, the Delingpod.
On the July 25 podcast, he interviewed award-winning, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. Rex Fleming about his conversion from global warming alarmism to skepticism.
The scientist also discussed the manipulation of data within NOAA, accusing a few individuals of “fiddling” with ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration.
He also brought up the prominent scientific organizations’ censorship of viewpoints by refusing to publish skeptical scientific papers.
Fleming admitted that for years he supported and “funded projects” by scientists attributing global warming to carbon dioxide in spite of “having doubts” while working for NOAA.
“Eventually I just read enough to realize it’s a totally wrong direction,” he said. “And so, in the past ten years, I’d say, I’ve been on the other side.” His shifting views made it far more difficult to be published though.
Although Fleming holds an undergraduate degree in math and a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, he could not get published by prominent U.S. scientific groups.
He is also the author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.
Dr. Rex Fleming
According to Fleming, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science refuse to publish scientific papers from scientists (like him) it considers “deniers.”
So he had to travel to Europe to have his 2018 paper on climate change peer-reviewed and published.
Fleming suggested the reason more scientists aren’t shifting away from anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is that they’re “in this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models. And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change.”
“It’s been a wonderful gravy train” for scientists since the 1970s, Fleming added.
Delingpole reiterated Fleming’s argument that carbon dioxide levels historically have risen due to warm temperatures, “not the other way around.”
“Correct,” Fleming replied.
Fleming also criticized alarmists for targeting the fossil fuel industry for several reasons. He said one political reason was to push socialism.
“They’re using a calamity as a measure to get people’s attention,” he said. “So the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly, without any proof, have assumed this is the problem.”
Read more at NewsBusters
Trackback from your site.
Rob Williams
| #
I’m not a chemist, I hold no degrees, never graduated from high school, so please bear with me. Cold water has a higher CO2 saturation point than warm water, yes? Only by having all the surface water become cooler, will that saturation point increase, thus decreasing ph levels. What is the ph level for cold, deep ocean water? I am presuming the ph levels are lower and CO2 concentrations are higher. If an equilibrium has been reached at the surface with regards to CO2 saturation and exchanges with atmospheric CO2, then it follows that there must be a different source for deep ocean CO2 to have a greater concentration than surface CO2. Wouldn’t volcanic vents, active volcanoes and crustal plate intersections would be the most probable source?
Are my assumptions and logic unsound?
Any upwelling of that deep water, should cause it to warm, decreasing the saturation point, and increasing the amount of CO2 to be outgassed at the surface.
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Rob.
The deep water upwellings along the West coast of South America have a ph of approximately 7.8 according to research by Dr Patrick Moore. ( sorry I have not referenced)
This up welling is a part of the Antarctic circumpolar current but because the Southern extreme of South America and the Antarctic peninsula create a narrowing and shallowing through Drake Passage much of the circumpolar current is deflected Northward along the coast of Chile and further North.
Much of our warmer oceanic water has a ph of approximately 8.2 the common exceptions being localized coastal areas of lower ph as a result of land use activities such as agriculture.
Cheers. Matt
Reply
Matt
| #
Localized coastal areas of lower ph also includes rainwater and snow melt water etc.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rob,
I am sure you are familiar with ‘carbonate’ beverages. I am sure you know the difference between what happens when you shake an unopened bottle (can) before opening it and opening the bottle or can that has not been recently shaken.
You should consider what you do know when considering the carbon dioxide being injected into the ocean’s water at the bottom of the ocean where pressure upon the water is very great. Amount of carbon dioxide dissolve into this bottom water will be very great and as long as this bottom water is not shaken, the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide can vary greatly.
But I have read, and I do not remember where and who wrote that which I claim to remember, that if there would be an earthquake and this supersaturated ocean shaken, one might expect the same thing to occur when you have shaken the carbonated beverage and immediately opened its container.
Something to ponder.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Smith
| #
If Global Warming serious everybody should cut BTU consumption/useage/output and stop being so damn greedy and selfish. So anybody wish to challenge me, what are you willing give up and to what percentage. My house+yard is totally Negative, you come and checkout how many trees I have and read my power bill mostly negative and less than 8,000km 5,000mi per year on my ute and no dishwasher, well incorrect.. there is….. me and dry clothes on external clothes line. cheers
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rob and Matt,
What Matt stated–“This up welling is a part of the Antarctic circumpolar current”–about the upwelling of cold water along the West Coast of South America is valid. But a key word is ‘part’. George Philander (El Nino, La Nina, the Sourthern Oscillation, 1990) in this monograph, which has a Bibliography of about 25 pages, reviews another part of the Pacific Ocean. circulation along the equator during ‘normal’ times and during the well known El Nino event during which very abnormal amounts of precipitation occurs along the west coast of South America in the tropical latitudes. Philander in a three page prologue summarizes the following 200 pages of his monograph (which is very slow, detailed, reading and unless one has devoted a good portion of one’s life studying the Pacific Ocean’s circulations system is very, very slow reading).
What Matt and others usually do not mention is the carbonate ion concentration of the ocean’s water. For the carbonate ion is a base and so is the hydrogen carbonate ion a base which are a part of the water, carbon dioxide, hydrogen carbonate, the carbonate ion, and the calcium carbonate (a solid) chemical equilibrium system.
Because of the ‘normal’ trade winds at the higher latitudes, the Pacific Ocean is sloped upward from the West Coast of South American toward Indonesia which is somewhat centered on the equator. This slope creates a counter current which flows from west to east and upwells when it meets the west coast of South America. There are other fundamental factors also involved in this ‘normal’ huge circulation system of the Pacific Ocean. The reason for the 200 pages of detailed information (data).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The primary ocean currents are due to the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of water. At the equator the Earth rotates at1000 mph while the water moves east at a slower rate which causes a westward current. In the Atlantic this current strikes the coast of Brazil and is redirected north as the Gulf Stream. In the Pacific this current strikes islands blocking its flow and causing a higher water level. The jet streams high in the atmosphere are not interacting with the ocean’s water. If they did they would push the water east not west.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
The last time you mentioned Southern Oscillation to me I thought you were talking atmospheric. In future when addressing swings and roundabouts I will prefix with oceanic or atmospheric.
Kind Regards. Matt
Reply