Real Science and Nebulous Consensus Science

Dr. Fred Singer Dr. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus
Several presentations at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Ontario, California, dealt with the issues of anthropogenic global warming promoted by the climate change industry.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and Ken Haapala, current president of SEPP, discussed the “National Environment Assessment: Peeling the Speculative Onion.” Haapala spoke of “climate fears and finance” and our government’s limitations on CO2 emissions as a “policy in search of a problem.”
Because the global warming (climate change) predictions have proven inaccurate, the fear of non-existent anthropogenic global warming should be called correctly “projections,” said Haapala. “None of the models have undergone the rigorous scientific testing required for verification and validation.”
Satellite images taken since December 1978 provided the most rigorous and comprehensive data measured in the mid-troposphere. It is where the greenhouse gas effect takes place. According to Haapala, four sets of measurements taken with weather balloons by two independent groups agree closely. But a weather balloon does not cover the globe “comprehensively” and surface measurements are taken on land when 71 percent of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans.
Haapala said that “there is good agreement between the average of the two sets of satellite measurements and the average of the four sets of weather balloon measurements, but significant disparity between the average of the model runs and the observations. This disparity is increasing over time.” Because model runs are expensive and time consuming, many of the models proposed by climate change promoters have “only one or two runs.”
Haapala used a graph of global mid-tropospheric temperature 5-year averages of Warming Predictions v. the Real World, graph developed by McNider and Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, to illustrate the wide-gap comparison between 102 model runs and observations.
Dr. Fred Singer proposed re-directing public concern from Global Warming (GW) to Global Cooling (GC), including a drastic shift in current policies, “abandoning all mitigation of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide.”
An expert in remote sensing and satellites with a specialty in atmospheric and space physics, founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and Vice Chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Dr. Singer is of the opinion that “a near-term cooling is among the major calamities facing the population on our planet – while concern about global warming is entirely misplaced. A Little Ice Age (DOB cooling) may arrive within decades – perhaps even sooner. The end of our warm Holocene inter-glacial is rapidly approaching.” He suggested that there is little time to lose in survival preparations and a paradigm change from global warming (GW) to global cooling (GC) is vital.
DOB (Dansgaard-Oeschger-Bond) warming-cooling cycles are solar-controlled and have periods of approximately 1000-1500 years. The most recent cooling phase of the Little Ice Age ended about 200 years ago. Singer and Avery’s 2007 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, makes a scientific case for these cycles.
Based on deep-sea sediment cores and ice cores scientists are “reasonably sure” of global cooling while rather shaky on global warming. According to Dr. Fred Singer, Earth has experienced “17 Milankovitch-style glaciations in the past 2 million years, each typically lasting 100,000 years, interrupted by warm ‘inter-glacials,’ typically of around 10,000-year duration. The most recent glaciation ended rather suddenly about 12,000 years ago.” He expects the current warm Holocene to end soon. He believes we “have already entered into the next glaciation” which will be discovered in retrospect.
Dr. Singer believes that Little Ice Ages are not “as severe as the major glaciations,” but “present an important threat to the food supply and to current civilization.” Human survival would be possible in developed nations based on available technology but warfare will become a main threat driven by shortages of food and other essential resources.
Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist who authored The Maunder Minimum and The Variable Sun-Earth Connection, discussed the topic of “How Clean is ‘Clean?’ A Common-Sense Proposal.” Taking aim at the “half-truth + half-truth must make a whole truth” paradigm, which he called a “lie,” Dr. Soon embarked on describing the imagined environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels such as human impact issues regulated by the EPA, an organization that loves to tell people how to live.
“Silencing the people who tell the truth about science cannot stand,” Dr. Soon continued. Ordinary people do not understand that as an honest scientist, “I do not care where the funding is coming from, I am only interested in the scientific truth,” I want to speed up finding out the truth.
Air pollution should have people dropping dead by now, if you are to believe the global warming alarmists. “Where are the bodies,” he asks? We should drop industrial activity, they say. Showing Beijing as an example of air pollution, the “data is all over the place” measured from 1998 until now.
If Beijing is so polluted as to kill quickly, Soon said, how do you explain the polluted air levels in a smoking lounge at the airport where nobody really drops dead? Levels of particulate matter (pm 2.5 air quality standards also known as fine particle pollution) are much higher in bars and restaurants in South Korea, for example.
Dr. Soon described how he chased study after study to find out evidence that the $9 billion given to Beijing Olympics Committee to improve air quality (the pm2.5), actually worked. “We know the air quality is bad and people cry when reading the paper in Beijing. What did they do? Shutting down the factories around to get some clean air. How much did they reduce the emission levels?” He found nothing definitive after a long chase of study after study.
Dr. Soon continued that the data shows, for example, that the air in Delhi or Santiago, Chile is more polluted than Beijing on certain days. Can you control the dust particle concentrations from dust storms in Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, or anyplace there is a desert? There are serious exaggerations coming from the EPA in regards to sudden death from particulate matter in the air. “There is a lot of politics with no scientific evidence to support the case,” Dr. Soon explained.
“The air is getting cleaner yet more people are suffering from asthma.” Are air pollutants causing the problem, asked Dr. Soon? Is it a health crisis? Yet the EPA refuses to release their science data even during testimony in Congress. Dr. Soon added that the EPA administrator said in essence, “You are going to see only what we want you to see.”
Dr. Willie Soon co-authored a paper on “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” which concluded that CO2 increases in the 20th and early 21st centuries “have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate.” Higher CO2 levels have increased “markedly” plant growth.
The Heartland Institute shared through its Science Director, Dr. Jay Lehr, the following environmental truths about climate change:
1. Climate alarmism is promoted through selective MSM reporting.
2. Temperatures around the globe have not risen since 1998.
3. Climate has been changing for eons and it is “neither unusual nor harmful.”
4. Antarctic ice is growing “far more than Arctic ice is melting.”
5. “900,000 years of ice core records show continuous 1,500-year warming cycles.”
6. When Greenland was green in the 13th century, temperatures were seven degrees F warmer.
7. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a necessary gas for plant life just like oxygen is necessary for humans to survive.
8. CO2 concentration levels have risen historically after, not before warming periods.
9. “Computer models used to forecast future warming cannot calculate the known past.”
10. $5 billion is spent annually to prove that man (anthropogenic) caused global warming.
While honest scientists are debating and arguing with incontrovertible facts against the nebulous consensus science fed to the climate change industry which is worth potential trillions, an EPA cleanup crew that was supposed to pump out and decontaminate harmful sludge instead “destabilized a dam of loose rocks lodged in the Gold King Mine near Durango and released it into tiny Cement Creek.” As it flowed into the Animas River, the toxic slurry of arsenic, lead, copper, aluminum, and cadmium reached other tributaries, San Juan and Colorado rivers, and flowed 80-miles from the closed mine site. The Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye, is planning on suing the EPA. “They are not going to get away with this,” he said.
This sad event begs the questions, while the EPA is helping de-develop the U.S. by over-regulating CO2, the gas necessary for plant life, are they responsibly guarding the actual pollution in our soil and water?

One thought on “Real Science and Nebulous Consensus Science

  1. According to the textbook geology, the magnitude 9.2 earthquake near Sumatra in 2004 released as much heat as 20,000,000 one megaton hydrogen bombs…….enough heat to melt all of the Arctic sea ice….as much heat as ten extra days of sunlight on earth. According to the textbook geology, it should have warmed noticeably in recent decades because of the sudden and rapid increase in seismic activity in the 1990’s comparable to the highly elevated seismic activity in the 1930’s and 1940’s when they had about the same climate and the poles were melting as in recent decades. Why has the textbook geology been dismissed in favor of this so called settled greenhouse warming science? Why does the new improved temperature record bear little resemblance to the original temperature record? Why is there no warming trend on graphs of rural temperature readings? Why is the apocalyptic amount of heat realeased by the monster earthquakes in recent decades somehow irrelevant while the .002 percent of the atmosphere that is manmade carbon dioxide is blamed for supertyphoons, droughts, floods, heatwaves and blizzards? Why does most of the media fail to mention these things including the fact that carbon dioxide increases the rate of growth of plants and greatly increases the food supply?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *