Sunday, Oct 26, 2014
Columns

Why are some facts on climate change being obscured?


Published:

Kudos to the Tampa Tribune for its May 5 “Faceoff Global Warming” debate in which the “Pro” position was argued by Joe Henderson, “Just the facts, please – climate change is real” and the “Con” position set forth by Tom Jackson, “Don’t sacrifice taxpayer trillions at AGW altar”.

I enjoyed reading both.

I wholeheartedly agree with Henderson’s opening statement, “Facts are neither liberal nor conservative. ... When we deny facts for political or personal gain, or just because we don’t want to believe, bad things often happen.” He goes on to say, “History is replete with scientists who persevered through skepticism…” Ironically though, this same situation is ongoing in the contentious “man-made” global warming debate as highly respected scientists with opposing viewpoints have been shut out and silenced.

Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University is popularly known for his annual hurricane season storm predictions. He is also an AMS (American Meteorological Society) fellow, Charney Award recipient and over 50-year member. Gray wrote an open letter in 2009 condemning the AMS’ selection of James Hansen as the recipient of the Rossby Research Medal. In it he calls out Hansen for his lack of meteorological training and “faulty and alarmist prognostications.” He states, “Hansen and his legion of environmental-political supporters (with no meteorological-climate background) have done monumental damage to an open and honest discussion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question.” Gray provides technical explanations for why Hansen’s modeling efforts are flawed and cites his strong support from Al Gore as to why he has gotten a “pass” on his faulty models. He goes on to say, “We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and Co2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think…. Instead of organized meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. ... Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult.”

Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center (1974-87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU-TV, Houston till 2008, called for an “immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate’” in his 2010 article in the Houston Chronicle. With regard to the email hacking of the UK’s Climate Research Unit, Frank states, “Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming. .... Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.”

Frank succinctly explains the differing positions of the believers and the skeptics in his article. In closing he states, “Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.”

So here we are in 2014, models emphasizing Co2 have proved to be inaccurate predictors of climate change. Moreover, open and reasoned scientific debate on the sun’s impact on climate change is nearly non-existent. Meanwhile the White House, in its March 28, 2014 “Climate Action Plan – Strategy to Cut Methane Emissions,” gives its marching orders to the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and the United States Department of Agriculture to regulate and control just about everything — including bovine flatulence. Think about that.

Pamela Johnson is a Spring Hill resident who is retired from the U.S. Marshals Service.

Comments

Part of the Tribune family of products

© 2014 TAMPA MEDIA GROUP, LLC