Climate change is currently a political hot topic. Celebrities, media personalities, politicians, and the general public share their opinions. The most frequent assertion is that greenhouse gas emissions have caused global warming, which will lead to climate disasters.
Advocates claim that climate change is a scientific fact. They quickly say that anyone who expresses a different view is anti-science and anti-human. They say those views should be silenced so as not to confuse the public.
However, many scientists state that climate change is not a settled fact.
Climate Change Politics Suppresses Opposing Voices
The public is mostly unaware of the debates within climate science. 100 university researchers challenged whether the cause of climate change is due to human or natural causes. The issue was the unexpected slowing rise of sea-levels over the past two decades.
Natural or Human Causes
The main issue debated was whether human activity causes environmental warming, or is it due to natural factors.
Physicist Michael Griffin said in 2007:
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. This assumes that today’s climate is the optimal climate, the best environment that we could have or ever have had.
Griffin expressed that scientists should have humility. However, he met with severe criticism. In a closed meeting, Griffin apologized to NASA employees for causing controversy.
A few months later, Griffin said: “I personally think people have gone overboard in the discussion of climate change. It has almost acquired religious status, which I find deplorable.”
Stifling scientific debate violates the spirit of Science, as scientific progress is the result of debate. “You develop your theories, publish your data, advance your concept, and others shoot it down, or try to. Scientific consensus evolves in that way,” Griffin said.
Politics Dictates Science
In a similar experience, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson received intense backlash from his peers when joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This think tank challenges global warming theories. The pressure was so severe that he resigned from the foundation.
The transformation that Bengtsson observed is the result of communist ideology and tactics of hijacking Environmental Science.
The alleged scientific consensus changed climate change from theory to dogma. Climate change is a crucial tenet of today’s environmentalism. Scientists, media, and environmental activists spread the belief in an imminent ecological disaster. The environmental movement frightens the public into accepting leftist political agendas. People willingly accept tax hikes and takeovers by big government to “save them” from doom. The communist-style political techniques are clear: deception, mobbing, public shaming, and open conflict.
‘Consensus’ in Climate Science
In 1988, the UN assessed science related to climate change. They evaluated existing research on climate change. Then they started releasing a report every few years. These reports attempted to provide a scientific basis for governments in their policymaking. Hundreds of scientists wrote and reviewed the reports before publishing. Hence, the reports gave the appearance that thousands of the world’s top scientists agreed.
In 1992, the UN Climate Change Report stated their goal was to stabilize greenhouse gases to prevent dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system. They began with the assumption that humans caused hazardous climate change. This was necessary for the organization’s governing power.
Climate Change Politics: Uncertainty Removed From UN Reports
Before the UN released its Second Assessment Report, world-renowned physicist Frederick Seitz obtained a copy. Seitz later discovered that the final report was not the same version that scientists approved. The report deleted all statements expressing uncertainty about the effects of human activity on climate change. Seitz said: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this report.”
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
The UN claimed that the scientists approved all modifications. Still, the changes reveal how politics influenced the report. The report summarized existing studies without adding original research. Because the current research contained so many different views, the UN deleted the opposing views that stood in the way of a consensus.
In April 2000, a first draft of the Third Assessment Report said, “There has been a discernible human influence on global climate.” In October, the second draft said, “It is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to the observed warming over the past 50 years.” The official conclusion was even more emphatic: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The New Scientist journal asked Tim Higham about the scientific basis behind the change. He said, “There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.”
Put another way, the UN made the answer they wanted.
Climate Change Politics: ‘Disaster Consensus’ Overstated in UN Report
Paul Reiter, a medical entomology professor in France, is a leading expert on malaria and other insect-borne diseases. He disagreed with the UN report. So he sued to get his name removed from the report. He said that the UN “make[s] it seem that all the top scientists agreed, but it’s not true.”
Reiter said: “This spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in public by influential panels of ‘experts.’ Every five years, the UN publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of Science.”
For example, environmentalists have been promoting the theory that insect-borne diseases such as malaria will wreak havoc as the climate warms. “Global warming will put millions of people at risk of malaria and dengue fever,” stated a Bloomberg article on November 27, 2007.
But Reiter disagrees with this conclusion. He pointed out that malaria is not confined to tropical areas. Throughout the Soviet Union, up to five million people died annually from the disease. A 2011 study published in Biology Letters found that rising temperatures decrease a mosquitoes’ infectiousness, and malaria transmission slows down.
Another scientist who withdrew from the UN report accused the UN of using disaster consensus as part of its operational culture. Meteorologist Christopher Landsea, a former hurricane researcher, withdrew from the UN report in January 2005. He said, “I personally cannot continue in a process that is motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” He urged the UN to adhere to science rather than sensationalism.
David Deming, a geologist, and geophysicist studied the 150-year historical temperature data for North America. He studied ice cores and wrote an article in Science. After publication, Deming stated that another researcher sent him an email. It said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The Medieval Warm Period refers to a period of unusually warm weather that began around AD 1000. It persisted until a cold period in the fourteenth century.
More than 780 scientists from 40 countries contributed research over 20 years. Their conclusion was that the Medieval Warm Period existed. However, erasing this period from the historical record would strengthen the claim that today’s warming is unprecedented.
Although hundreds of research papers refute the UN’s consensus, academia and the media marginalized their opinions.