16 Scientists Blow the Whistle On Lucrative Global Warming Alarmism Industry

Political propagandists will tell you the science on global warming is settled. However, 16 scientists felt the need to speak up for the growing segment of distinguished scientists who think it’s much to do about nothing.

The scientists co-authored and signed an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that opens:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Surely these authors must be on the take from big oil, right? I mean, what kind of evidence could they offer that proves global warming is being blown out of proportion?

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

But CO2 is practically poison, right? Surely we can’t just allow such pollution to go unchecked.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

So why aren’t more scientists speaking out? The climate (forgive the pun) in the scientific community is highly discouraging of it. This is not only an ideological drive for many, but it’s a government-funded cash cow.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Related: Climate Tyrants: Lawmaker Wants to Make it Illegal to Question Global Warming

If the science is settled, why are people being silenced for their dissent? Can the factual arguments not stand their own merit? Why are people being fired for making logical conclusions? Why are they sooner to censor someone than they are to try and convince them? Now people want to make it illegal to question global warming — all of which should make you extremely skeptical of what they’re pushing. This is not how science works.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Follow the money and you’ll be surprised to learn — global warming alarmism is fairly lucrative.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

These scientists who are speaking out want everyone to understand that this is not an issue politicians need to address.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Furthermore, they correctly state that deindustrializing in order to combat global warming will hamper economic growth and leave undeveloped parts of the world stuck where they are.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

But if you dare to question any of this, you will ostracized and called a quack.

Related posts


Dissertation July 21, 2020 at 9:14 pm


[…]Here is an excellent Blog You may Discover Exciting that we Encourage You[…]

Backlink August 29, 2020 at 5:19 pm


[…]Every the moment in a though we pick blogs that we read. Listed beneath are the most current web-sites that we pick […]

mksorb.com August 30, 2020 at 4:21 am


[…]Here are several of the web pages we suggest for our visitors[…]

mksorb.com November 21, 2020 at 9:14 am


[…]below you’ll obtain the link to some websites that we feel you must visit[…]

cbd oil for dogs December 4, 2020 at 5:53 am

cbd oil for dogs

[…]Here is a good Weblog You might Discover Intriguing that we Encourage You[…]

Masum January 10, 2022 at 9:27 pm


[…]please take a look at the web sites we adhere to, which includes this one, as it represents our picks in the web[…]

Leave a Comment