I'm Feeling Sorry for the Global Warming "Consensus" Crowd

One of the worst things that someone can do is to claim that a consensus exists when it does not. More and more, the so-called global warming "consensus"--that man-made global warming is destroying planet earth--is falling apart. This faux consensus has contributed more than most any other factor for man's lack of hospitality to earth.

It's time for some environmental honesty.

Can't we just work together using

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.

reality to encourage stewardship of the earth? Apparently not. From the early days of environmentalism, lies and exaggeration have been the norm. Global warming "expert" Stephen Schneider summed it up quite well about twenty years ago.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
One of the greatest "scary scenarios" of all--the one trying to hold all the rest of the lies together--is that there is some kind of consensus that man is now causing nearly irreversible global warming. There never has been, and there never will be, consensus of that sort, unless the definition of consensus has been legally changed to something like:
a general agreement or concord [among those who wish to politicize an issue]; [pretended or wished for] harmony.
I feel sorry for those who still hold to the unsupportable claim that there has ever been anything close to a consensus that man is causing significant global warming. If belief in such a consensus ever was based on science, it is now nothing more than worshipful cultism.

Patrick J. Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, says:
Global warming is real, and human beings have something to do with it. We don't have everything to do with it; but we can't stop it, and we couldn't even slow it down enough to measure our efforts if we tried.

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, p. 9
Michaels goes on in his book to show a plethora of reasons how and why there is no consensus on man-made global warming.

Stanley B. Goldenberg is an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division. Goldenberg says
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.
This updated Senate report states that more than 650 scientists disagree that there is "consensus". The report's introduction says
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the...IPCC...and former Vice President Al Gore. This new...[r]eport -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. [This is] more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary... (Emphasis added.)
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner, says
I am a skeptic. ...global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money...
Kiminori Itoh, a physical chemist from Japan, says of the "consensus"
It is the worst scientific scandal in history.
It is. How unfortunate.

A recent group of scientists who debunked the man-made global warming "consensus" is more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary.

If we really want to take care of the earth, we need to first and foremost be honest about how bad the situation is. If we aren't honest, we effectively encourage the ignoring of truly important environmental issues that really shouldn't be ignored.

That's why I feel sorry for the global warming consensus crowd. Besides putting blind faith in a lie, these people are some of the environment's worst enemies.


  1. What truly important environmental issues are being ignored due to the focus on global climate disruption? What environmental problems will not be helped by the emphasis on reducing carbon emissions, by the message from serious environmental sources that we need to reduce consumption?

  2. Jan & Stan Berenstain, the authors of the popular Berenstain Bears series, once said something quite profound in a comment directed at parents. Never lie to your kids. If you do lie to your kids, even with the best of intentions, they will stop trusting you when they discover the truth. They won't trust you even when what you say is both true and important. You may need to simplify to the child's level of understanding, but never lie to them.

    This same principle holds true in pretty much every other aspect of life. It holds true for science as well. Once you start lying, even with the best of intentions, you will diminish confidence in anything you say. It's the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' syndrome. Once a vocal group of 'scientists' prevaricates with the intent to do well, the public's faith in scientific pronouncements of any kind decreases.

  3. Frank, how exactly by "putting blind faith in a lie, these people are some of the environment's worst enemies"? How exactly they have hurt the Earth? If they are the worst enemies, who are the environment's best enemies to you? Which are those truly important environmental issues that really shouldn't be ignored? And why do you think we do really want to take care of the Earth? Who do you actually mean by "we"? Do you mean all of the Earth's inhabitants or only us, Americans, or maybe all the industrialized polluting and wasting nations, including China and Japan? Was there ever any cooperation between the nations of the Earth, actually countries, i.e. states? Had they all ever had any common goal? Actually, do you really believe there is any cooperation, any solidarity, any common goal between the actual nations and their governments, actually those who are running the governments of those nations? Generalization like "we" is anti-scientific. "We" consists of regular people who do not have any say, and those very few who are running the show, the heads of monopolies and corporations. So even if the scientists have overexaggerated the issue a little bit, have concealed unverifiable parts of their conclusions, it does not make them daemons. The real daemons are those who are polluting the environment the heads of monopolies, who are, by the way, polluting also your water, air and food, while accumulating enormous wealth.

    Additionally, the analogy of the parents lying to their children is completely off place. The scientists are not the parents. They are the children who after getting their degree have become wiser than their parents, the greedy heads of monopolies, the industrialists. The industrialists have been from the beginning. They have been poisoning and polluting before scientists appeared on the scene. So, the industrialists were the first. Scientists came later. Industrialists are the greedy stupid, neanderthal parents. The scientists are their educated and intelligent children. So, it is okey for the educated children to lie to their savage parents scaring them with dooms day scenarios. Maybe it is a desperate measure from the side of the scientists to stop those uncivilized savages, industrialists from polluting and poisoning the Earth. But the global warming is real. It had brought to ice ages several times in the Earth's history. You would not deny them, would you? If there is any misrepresentation in the issue of the global warming, it is the claim that it is caused by human activity. Human activity is maybe not a huge contributor. But again, the scientists had their motives.

  4. Reach- does the Berenstain quote apply to Santa Claus? :)

  5. Ironically, Carissa, I do know of a person who for a short time as a child did become disillusioned and questioned virtually everything when she found out that Santa was a fiction. As she very logically saw it, how is Jesus any more realistic or believable than Santa? It has made me that much more reluctant to tell my children untruths for even seemingly innocuous reasons.

    I don't believe many of the environmentalists, scientific or otherwise, have deliberately lied. I believe many may have jumped to conclusions based on the evidence they had at hand. Some very likely exaggerated, variously intentionally and inadvertently, to make their case. Neither can be morally justified; lying for a purportedly good cause is not acceptable. But it is human.

    For what it is worth, I do believe that the evidence of global climate disruption is compelling. But I also recognize that nothing is ever definitive or absolute in science; there can and should always be doubt in the absence of all the facts (at the risk of contradicting my statement about absolutes, we never have all the facts). I believe global climate disruption is very likely, but not a proven truth. Given its likelihood, and the fact that reducing the likely causes of global climate change will also be beneficial in ameliorating virtually all other aspects of environmental degradation, I believe we would be wise to take those steps.

    I also believe that many who scoff at GCD do so not out of legitimate scientific skepticism, but merely out of their own ideological dogma. They simply do not believe that human activity, or more specifically, human market activity, could have serious negative consequences. For all that they see the potential for human error in other aspects of civilization, they refuse to see the potential for error when it comes to technological "progress" or economic growth.

    Others do so out of pure "self-interest;" as the sort of economic changes necessary to reduce our ecological footprint would be economically disadvantageous to them.

    To disregard the potential of GCD on those grounds would be incredibly foolhardy.

  6. I just wanted to find out if we were the only wierdo parents who don't pretend Santa is real for this exact reason.

    I know a child who also lost a lot of trust in his parents over the issue. And guess what the next thing he questioned was? The existence of Jesus. It's not worth it. We have 5 kids and they've always had a wonderful Christmas while knowing Santa is a fun myth.

  7. Of course, I'm a bit heretical on the whole trust issue. In a sense, I want my children to question my beliefs about Jesus. I want their testimony to be based on their own understanding and journey to find the truth, not simply a trust in what I have to tell them.

  8. That's not heretical at all. It's wise, and much better for them. It's fine and normal (and to be expected, really) for them to question what they believe in. I just don't want it to be caused by an intentional misrepresentation of the truth on my part.

    (sorry for the threadjack!)

  9. Carissa and Derek,

    Not a problem at all! If it's a threadjack, it's only a very minor one, because it talks to the issue of speaking truth. My kids were all pretty young when they learned of "not Santa". I still illustrate the absurdity by making jokes about it, such as this year when the boys wanted to trade in their AirSoft guns for different models, and I told them it would probably take a week or so to mail them to the North Pole and get their new ones back.

    In reply to Derek's first question: truly environmental issues being ignored are ways to help countries like China and India make sensible environmental improvements, instead of giving the impression that such improvements would be monumental and next to impossible (and forgiving/absolving them of responsibility through Kyoto). Overstatements have caused a huge polarization of people's opinions and cause many opponents of the man-made global warming theory to talk negatively of and treat the environment badly as their backlash.

    I find it very ironic that everyone blames America as the global warming bogeyman when the United States has made the greatest improvement in CO2 emission reduction. Surprisingly, Europe gets all the accolades simply because they pledged to support Kyoto, and even though their emissions are increasing (see December 2007 Economist). It reminds me of the parable of the servants in the Bible, where the first (Europe) said he would do his master's bidding but didn't, but the second (the US) said he wouldn't do what the master asked, but ended up doing it anyway.

    Reach Upward said it very well above:

    Once you start lying, even with the best of intentions, you will diminish confidence in anything you say.

  10. Interesting, so "environmental issues being ignored are ways to help countries like China and India make sensible environmental improvements." You are not blaming environmentalists and scientists for that, are you? You are also overlooking that "United States has made the greatest improvement in CO2 emission reduction" only by exporting and outsourcing its CO2 and other poisonous emission production lines to China and India. Being only 5% of the population of the planet we are consuming around 70% of its natural resources. Just because we have managed to put the smoking gun into someone else's pocket, does not make us innocent, moreover the best.

  11. Frank, I think that we might have a lot of difficulty nailing down “sensible environment improvements.” We want to believe we can fix things by minor, superficial changes. I think the reality is that the change needs to be much more fundamental. As long as we embrace a culture of conspicuous consumption and of limitless economic growth, the environmental problems will increase. For example, as long as we promote an agenda of maximizing resource harvesting--”drill baby drill!”--conditions will deteriorate at levels both local and global.

    There is a great deal of legitimate cause for the U.S. to be blamed for global climate disruption and the increasingly precarious state of our environment. Our ecological footprint has continued to burgeon: our houses are larger, as are our autos, we drive farther, we use more electricity, etc. Some industrial processes and energy generation processes are more efficient, reducing some emissions per unit of energy created and spent, but those are offset by the increased usage and larger population. And Gnostic is right. To a large extent, our seeming emission reduction is to a large extent smoke and mirrors. We’ve outsourced the emissions to the third-world; those emissions are still driven to a large extent by our demand.

    We have hardly done the master’s bidding.

  12. Reducing our carbon output could have a dramatic impact on the Earth, but for the worst. Plants and trees are thriving today based on today's CO2 output. If somehow humans could disrupt and reduce the current amount of carbon dioxide it could have a devastating impact on plant life which would effect every living thing on Earth.

  13. Ken,

    Excellent point. I read about 20 years ago a study of how CO2 is a boon to plant life. Another interesting point, from the book "Red Hot Lies" is that 96% of CO2 output in the world comes from NON-human sources.


    Yes, I am indirectly blaming environmentalists as you suggest. Try (very carefully) to digest the very salient point about truth and honesty made by Reach Upward above.


    From the perspective of "conspicuous consumption", I'm sure you know that I completely agree with your most recent comment. Twisting that, however, into a mandate to reduce a carbon footprint is exactly the exaggeration that I have addressed in my article. We need to be stewards of the earth, but we need to stop lying about a somehow falling sky.

    I'm not sure how you can weave in a snide remark about increased population as NOT doing the master's bidding. Who would you get rid of?

    Yours and Gnostic's claim that US reduction in emissions has to do with outsourcing is intriguing to me and makes some sense. If you have more information on the topic, I would enjoy researching it.

  14. Carbon emissions are a significant part of the ecological footprint we leave through carbon emissions. They need to be reduced as part of the whole reduction.

    The comment was not snide, merely a reflection of the analogy you made. If we believe that we can endlessly increase our consumption (which is, after all, the essence of economic activity) throughout the increasing population, we are failing to do be good stewards--which is the master's bidding. I'm not sure why you saw that as a condemnation of population growth rather than a recognition that if we are going to increase the population (which I certainly believe in), then we need to be realistic about our resources and move to a more sustainable economy and more simple "way of life."

  15. Thanks for your clarification on population. I apologize for misinterpreting it. I agree with your clarification, except...

    Assuming you refer to CO2 when you say carbon, I disagree with your statement about carbon footprint. As I said to Ken above, 96% of CO2 comes from non-human sources that we couldn't hope to control.

  16. If the small percentage we do control might tip the balance toward climate disruption, would it not be wise to reduce those emissions?

    (Yes, I realize that climate is in a constantly state of flux. It will eventually change regardless of what we do. But our activity has the potential to change it sooner. Given that any change from that to which our civilizations are adapted are likely to cause serious disruptions in those civiliations, we should avoid that possibility).

    Additionally, I support carbon emission reduction because most of the processes which cause carbon emissions also emit other pollutants. I doubt you can reduce the latter without also reducing the former.

  17. I don't like your first sentence, because there is very little (none?) evidence that anything we do "could tip the balance". Only scare tactics.

    I do appreciate your insight that "the processes which cause carbon emissions also emit other pollutants" A very good point that I hadn't previously considered.

  18. Frank,
    How can you qualify Ken's point as excellent while admitting that "96% of CO2 output in the world comes from NON-human sources." If you truly believe that 96% of CO2, vital for the thriving of all plant form substance, comes not from human activity, then eliminating the remaining 4% of the carbon (from human activity) will not have any significant impact on the plant form. Then Ken's point is pointless, not speaking of being excellent.

    FYI the plants consume CO2 and emit 02 only under direct sunlight. At night the opposite process is going on, i.e. the plants at night consume 02 and emit CO2.

    The global warming is going on, and may eventually bringing to an ice age owing to maybe CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. By contributing to CO2 accumulation we, humans are accelerating the global warming process. Even a 4% contribution may have a magnified resonance down the road. Again, it may. Nobody can provide 100% assurance neither against nor for the idea.

    Derekstaff's insight that "the processes which cause carbon emissions also emit other pollutants" was actually the point before the CO2 was separated and hoisted up as the only pollutant. This was a misleading maneuver by the same industrialists to divert the attention of the people from those, more harmful pollutants, o CO2. Again, those "other pollutants" were and are more dangerous both for the health of the humans and for the planet in general. Actually one should not make any separation between the health of the planet and humans. They are inseparable.

    Reach Upward's point is correct in general. My argument was that his analogy was not reflecting the situation. I have explained why in my response above. While calling not to lie, you better consider to whom. If the scientists had overexaggerated their conclusions and concealed some unverifiable data, which you call a lie, was intended to stop, at least reverse the environmental devastation caused by industrialists. Your argument is that after the 'hoax' is revealed, the industrialists will continue destroying our environment without meeting any resistance from the people. My question is, since when are they, those industrialists, inclined to consider the people's opinion? Since when do they care about what the people think and want? They have always neglected the people and the environment. Currently they are playing concerned and are using any trend to attain personal profits. So the overexaggeration of facts and conclusions of the scientists will not have a significant impact, again, because the industrialists are not affected by people's opinions. They just don't care. They do whatever they want despite any opinions on the bottom.

    I cannot believe, though, that there are people out there who are prone to turn a blind eye on the pollution (caused by industrialists) due to more harmful pollutants than CO2.

  19. FWIW, I agree with John Holden that "global warming," is an inaccurate term for what evidence suggests is occurring; it allows you to discredit the entire process, as you (Frank) have in previous posts, based on the fact that the change isn't really about warming. I believe that global climate disruption is a more apt.

  20. Not to derail an otherwise intelligent and civil-minded discussion (to which I wouldn't think of trying to contribute for lack of serious research), but you're cracking me up with the new climate change monicker.

    First it was "global warming," which gave way to the conveniently vague "climate change," which is apparently now becoming an equally vague, though more scientific-sounding (due to the acronym) "Global Climate Disruption."

    I'm afraid the chicken littles have cried wolf too many times on this one.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog