Global warming is a global hoax

Global warming

Global fraud

I’ve never believed in global warming or anthropogenic climate change.  As would any sane, knowledgeable person, I believe in climate change, but that’s because I know that the complex interaction of earth and sun has meant that our climate has changed since the day the earth came into being.  But I don’t believe man does anything worse than create pollution and and cause waste.  Both of those are pretty darn bad, of course.  They can destroy vast swaths of land and water, and wipe out whole species — but they are still not the same as humans cooking the earth into an alternately arid or flooded globe, incapable of being inhabited by man or animal.

Others are catching up with me.  One of the best things I’ve read on the topic is a letter that David Deming, Professor of Arts & Sciences at the University of Oklahoma wrote to the Bellingham Herald, in Washington State.  The trigger for Deming’s letter was the fact that the Bellingham Herald had published a screed a group of professors at Washington Western University wrote attacking Don Easterbrook, a noted climate change skeptic.  The Bellingham Herald refused to publish Deming’s letter, say it only published letters from locals.  It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the paper that the letter stands on its own as an op-ed piece.  (Or maybe it did occur to the AGW drones at the paper, which is why they were so absolute in their refusal to give it space.)

Thankfully, Watts Up With That did publish Deming’s letter, so that it has garnered a much greater readership than anything the Bellingham Herald could have given it.  This letter deserves this maximum distribution because its logic and clarity are such that everyone over the age of ten can understand it.  It is a comprehensive, sustained, polite, logical, elegantly written, and perfectly clear attack against twenty-years of intellectual and emotional tyranny from the Left:

Letter to the Editor by Dr. David Deming

I write in rebuttal to the March 31 letter by WWU geology faculty criticizing Dr. Don Easterbrook. I have a Ph.D in geophysics and have published research papers on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In 2006 I testified before the US Senate on global warming. Additionally, I am the author of a three-volume history of science.

I have never met Don Easterbrook. I write not so much to defend him as to expose the ignorance exhibited in the letter authored by WWU geology faculty. Their attack on Dr. Easterbrook is the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science. But the goal of the geology faculty at WWU seems to be to suppress critical inquiry and insist on dogmatic adherence to ideology.

The WWU faculty never defined the term “global warming” but described it as “very real,” as if it were possible for something to be more real than real. They claimed that the evidence in support of this “very real” global warming was “overwhelming.” Yet they could not find space in their letter to cite a single specific fact that supports their thesis.

There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.

One might think that the foregoing facts would raise doubts in scientists interested in pursuing objective truth. But global warming is not so much a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification as it is a political ideology that must be fiercely defended in defiance of every fact to the contrary. In the past few years we have been told that not only hot weather but cold weather is caused by global warming. The blizzards that struck the east coast of the US in 2010 were attributed to global warming. Every weather event–hot, cold, wet or dry–is said to be caused by global warming. The theory that explains everything explains nothing.

Among the gems in the endless litany of nonsense we are subjected to are claims that global warming causes earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Last year we were warned that global warming would turn us all into hobbits, the mythical creatures from J. R. R. Tolkien’s novels. I am not aware of any member of the WWU geology faculty criticizing these ridiculous claims. Their vehemence seems to be reserved for honest skeptics like Dr. Easterbrook who advance science by asking hard questions.

At the heart of the WWU geology faculty criticisms was the claim that peer review creates objective and reliable knowledge. Nonsense. Peer review produces opinions. Scientists, like other people, have political beliefs, ideological orientations, and personal views that strain their scientific objectivity. One of the most disgusting things to emerge from the 2009 Climategate emails was the revelation of an attempt to subvert the peer-review process by suppressing the publication of work that was scientifically sound but contrary to the reviewer’s personal views.

The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. This sort of bias is not limited but pervasive. Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.

The WWU geology faculty letter asserted that technological advances arise from application of the scientific method. They claimed that airplanes were invented by scientists. But the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics–not scientists. The modern age of personal computing began in a suburban California garage in 1976. The most significant technological advance in human history was the Industrial Revolution in Britain that occurred from 1760 through 1830. When Adam Smith toured factories and inquired as to who had invented the new machinery, the answer was always the same: the common workman. Antibiotics were not discovered through the rigorous application of scientific methodology but serendipitously when Fleming noticed in 1928 that mold suppressed bacterial growth.

Dr. Easterbrook’s contributions have furthered the advance of scientific knowledge and the progress of the human race. It matters not if a multitude of professors oppose him. As Galileo explained, it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly….reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.”

David Deming
Professor of Arts & Sciences
University of Oklahoma

Hat tip: Powerline

Be Sociable, Share!
  • David Foster

    Freeman Dyson

  • Earl

    I’m not a “real” scientist, despite my PhD, but a professor…a molder of young minds.  I spent my 30+ year career (so far as possible) infecting such minds with skepticism about the “theory” of AGW, because it has always appeared to me to be a political program hijacking the “scientific enterprise” to advance its agenda.
    It is impossible for me to express how satisfying it is to read these pieces from genuine experts, who are  far more eloquent than I, gradually getting the truth about this damaging ideology to the public at large.  Anthony Watts (my weatherman, here in Chico, CA) is a national treasure, and will someday be widely recognized as such. 
    Thank you for posting this, BW.

  • Kevin_B

    Thanks you for posting Deming’s letter, Bookworm. That was quite an interesting and enjoyable read and I’m glad it DID get published somewhere.
    As I mentioned on another thread some months ago, see here:
    I just so happen to be a Master of Environmental Sciences student at the University of Antwerp.
    I suspect that (and probably will) get a whole lot of things thrown at me around here, just for that. However, being in this position I felt that I should probably comment on this post. Not because I’m uniquely qualified to do so – I’m not – but because I do have some environmental background.
    I will not get into discussing the science behind global warming or of it being a hoax, and neither will I discuss Deming’s scientific work. I would have to read his studies for that, although I am planning to do that if I find the time for it. This post will mostly consist of some opinions and observations.
    Concerning global warming… well, climate change is real. Climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth, has continued to do so in recorded history and continues to do so until this day. That much can be documented. It is also in my opinion undeniably true that climate change is naturally occurring process. I may not be skeptical to the same extent as some around here to the idea of anthropogenic global warming, however I also call into question it’s truth and validity. I think it cannot be called into question that humankind has an impact, and I do not exclude that humankind may have some influence or be a contributing factor in major changes. However, I do believe that humankind is only one factor with some kind and degree of influence – which I think is fairly limited – and can be a contributing factor, however only one of many and not a very big one either. There are many other forces than humankind involved, which are I believe larger and more powerful than humankind. The theory that humankind on its own is putting the entire planet in a giant frying pan and turning it into an unliveable place is pretty ludicrous. Also, I believe many of the schemes that are devised to ‘stop global warming’ are controlling, damaging and potentially dangerous. Of course, first of all these schemes are pretty ludicrous. Adaptation to changing circumstances however doesn’t seem so stupid to me.
    As far as the environment is concerned, well, my main worry and interest lies with other issues. I myself am far more worried about and interested in pollution of water, soil and air, the destruction of habitats and last but not least the mitigation of human impacts on the environment. Look, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Human populations will inevitably have an impact on the environment and will change it in some way or another. I do however believe we are in some way called to be stewards. We are allowed, in fact obliged, to use the environment – but use doesn’t equal abuse. I believe humans can do a lot of good and a lot of bad with respect to our environment. I also have a – perhaps naively large – believe in and some optimism about technology. Science can also help us in this respect. I refuse to believe that one has to be anti-human, anti-development and pretty much anti-everything to have any concern for the environment.
    Last but not least, and this draws back slightly to the GW issue: I do believe we should look into new and alternative sources of energy and fuel. However, many of the current schemes aren’t working out very well or at all, and for the time being fossil fuels will remain important. We should use them wisely, but we shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about using them.

  • Mike Devx

    Well, Kevin_B, I’ve carefully read both of your posts, and I don’t see anything objectionable (or, as you say, that would cause many things to be thrown at you!)
    You might arrive at a few different conclusions than I might – such as with your statement that we should “look into new and alternative sources of energy and fuel”… I always worry about vague phrases such as “look into” and what such choices of words might conceal.  But then again, every time Obama utters the word “investment” I want to run screaming away from his world into an alternative, saner universe.
    So, I agree with everything you wrote but might come to some different conclusions, I never *expect* other people to agree with me.  Few of us here in Book’s domain are doctrinaire about anything!
    You appear to have a healthy skepticism towards any proclaimed result, which is one sign of a true scientist.  You expect PROOF.  You expect that a scientific study should have to survive scrutiny.  Perhaps most amazingly, you appear to approach this issue with some caution and humility.  That’s rare among the so-called environmental science community.  You’ve wondered if you might be conservative; that natural caution and humility is highly likely a conservative trait!

  • Pingback: Who Owns Your Children (and other stuff worth reading) « Thinking in Christ()