NOTE:
The null hypothesis of
man made global warming,
that everything we observe
can be explained
by natural causes,
has NEVER been rejected.
That's too easy to forget
with all the climate science
"know-it-alls" in the world
The goal of
scientific research
used to be
"getting it right",
when trying
to explain
something that
has happened
on our planet.
Today's science
includes major
replication failures,
publication biases,
and political biases.
"Climate science"
is even worse,
with wild guess
long-term predictions
of the future climate
( always bad news )
that require fifty years
of waiting just to see
if they are right.
In the past fifty years,
all long term climate
predictions have been
for bad news, and
they were all wrong.
The first problem with
"climate science"
is massive government
funding, leading to
confirmation bias.
Most funding
of climate science
is by state and federal
governments, directly,
or through grants.
This money buys
only the "science"
governments wants --
which is predicting a
coming climate
change crisis,
that governments
claim ONLY they
can prevent.
In reality, there
is no climate crisis.
If there was a climate crisis,
no individual government
could stop it, and it's very
unlikely that all governments,
working together, could stop it.
When I use the word "crisis",
I'm NOT thinking about
minor changes in the global
average temperature, such as
+0.6 degrees C. from 1940 to
the end of 2018, as lots of CO2
was added to the atmosphere.
That's totally harmless,
especially because
most of the warming
was at higher (cold) latitudes,
during the six coolest months
of the year, and at night.
Who in their right mind
would want that to stop ?
To me, a real crisis would be
the end of the current
Holocene interglacial,
( the past 10,000 years,
with an unusually pleasant
and warm climate ).
Government funding
demands that scientists
seek information
that suggests the climate
is abnormal ( it's not ),
that can be extrapolated
into a future crisis.
Scientists intentionally,
or unintentionally,
let their biases affect
their interpretation of
research findings.
recommendations against
publication of studies
with undesired findings,
and recommendations
against funding studies
to be based on
undesirable theories.
Scientists are
always motivated
to get their studies
published, and
grants funded.
Scientists are
always motivated
to want popular media
to publicize their research.
Some scientists want
well paid consulting and
speaking engagement too,
and / or have their findings
influence policy decisions.
Scientists want to be
rewarded by promotions,
grants, named chairs, etc.
Because leftists
love government,
and so many of them
fill government jobs,
the "deep state"
is only going to
reward the science
that supports their
political agenda.
Speaking or
consulting fees
will usually
be linked
to the same
political agenda.
We should expect science
to tell us the truth, but in
climate science we get
huge piles of BS:
Scary predictions that
prove to be 100% wrong.
"Scientists" make
those scary predictions
to get attention,
government salaries
and government grants.
When it becomes obvious
the predictions were wrong,
which can take a decade
or two, you'd think those
'predictors' would lose
their reputations.
Not so.
In the bizarre world of leftism,
scary, wrong predictions,
that got lots of media attention,
will result in the "scientist"
getting lots of awards
and cash prizes.
Similar to
former president
Barack Obama,
who received the
Nobel Peace Prize,
but had the US at war
for every single day
of his eight long years !
Consider how much money,
that I know of, was thrown
at climate / environmental
scaremongers who made
WRONG predictions:
Infamous US
climate doomsayer
Paul R. Ehrlich,
was showered with
lucrative prizes
after 50 years
of predicting
human doom.
Ehrlich's prizes included:
1990:
MacArthur Fellows
“Genius Grant”,
at the time ranging from
$ 155,000 to $ 600,000
( Ehrlich would have been
at the high end of the range ).
1990:
Sweden’s Crafoord (OK) Prize,
sharing the award
with a biologist
Estimate of $ 200,000
at the time.
1993:
Heinz Foundation Award,
$ 250,000
Volvo Environmental Prize.
Currently $ 170,000.
1998:
Tyler Prize,
$ 200,000.
1998:
Heineken Prize,
$ 200,000
1999:
Asahi Glass’s Blue
Planet Prize,
50 million yen
( or $ 420,000,
at the time ).
2009:
Ramon Margalef Prize,
80,000 Euros
(or $ 110,000,
at the time ).
# 2013:
BBVA Frontiers Award,
400,000 Euros
( or $ 530,000,
at the time ).
Paul Ehrlich total,
about $ 2.6 million
Consider climate
alarm originator,
and ex-NASA
scaremonger,
James Hansen:
In 2001, Hansen ,
while at NASA,
accepted a
$ 250,000 award
from Theresa
Heinz Kerry,
wife of Democrat
John Kerry.
In 2004, Hansen endorsed
John Kerry for president
while still a NASA director !
Hansen, at NASA,
admitted
in a 2003 issue of
Natural Science
that the use of
“extreme scenarios”
to dramatize climate change
“may have been appropriate
at one time” to drive the
public’s attention to the issue.
Hansen has referred
to coal trains
as “death trains”
and was arrested twice
at climate demonstrations:
2001:
Heinz Award:
$ 250,000
2007:
Dan David Prize:
$ 330,000
2008:
PNC Bank
Common
Wealth Award:
$ 50,000
2010:
Sophie Prize:
$US100,000
2012:
Stephen Schneider Award:
$ 10,000
2016:
BBVA Award:
$ 450,000
2018:
Taiwan’s Tang Prize.
$ 800,000.
James Hansen total
$ 1.99 million
California’s
Dr Peter H. Gleick,
just won
$100,000 from
Israel’s Boris Mints
Institute, in April
for the “Strategic
Global Challenge
of Fresh Water”
and the
Carl Sagan Prize
in 2018
Gleick has won
over 30 honors
and awards, including
a $ 500,000 MacArthur
“Genius” award for 2003.
In 2012, Gleick
raided e-documents
from the climate skeptic
Heartland Institute by
“impersonating
a board member
of the Heartland Institute,
stole his identity
by creating a fake
email address, and
proceeded to use
that fake email address
to steal documents
that were prepared
for a board meeting.
He read those documents,
concluded that there was
no smoking gun in them,
and then forged
a two-page memo.
Gleick denied forging
the document.
The forgery
"showed" Heartland
receiving $200,000
from the Koch brothers’
Foundation, when reality
was only $25,000,
and that sum was
for a health-care study.
Gleick apologized:
“in a serious lapse of
my own professional
judgment and ethics,
I solicited and received
… materials directly
from the Heartland Institute
under someone else’s name
… I forwarded, anonymously,
the documents
I had received
to a set of journalists
and experts working on
climate issues …
My judgment was blinded
by my frustration with
the ongoing efforts
— often anonymous,
well-funded, and
coordinated —
to attack
climate science
and scientists ...
and by the lack
of transparency
of the organizations
involved.
Nevertheless
I deeply regret my
own actions in this case.
I offer my
personal apologies
to all those affected.”
( Heartland's
“well-funded”
budget that year
was only $4.4 million,
of which one third
went for climate work,
funding one conference,
a blog and half a dozen
climate reports.
That compares with the
World Wildlife Fund's
current budget in the US
of $230 million
( Heartland is now $6 million )
Within one month
of Gleick’s confession,
water tech company Xylem
awarded him a “Water Hero”
award.
Gleick later won a Lifetime
Achievement Award from
a Silicon Valley
Water Group (2013),
Gleick was honored by
the Guardian newspaper
in 2014, as a world top-ten
water guru,
In 2015, Gleick received
the Leadership and
Achievement Award
from the Council of
Scientific Society
Presidents.
In 2015, Gleick also received
an Environmental Education
Award from the Bay Institute.
The major Carl Sagan
and BMI Prizes followed
in 2018 and 2019.