Climate Change … can the “consensus” argument amount to an admission of defeat?

CLIMHR (2)One of the least reliable sources for data on climate change is the US federal government. Now, a group of 300 scientists and academics want Congress to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for cooking the books on climate data in order to erase the pause in the rise in temperature cited by, among other sources, the IPCC.” (Rick Moran, American Thinker Magazine January 29, 2016)

Here are my comments:

Whistle blowers have credibility because they have much to lose by speaking out against the “consensus”, including money, friendships, and reputation.  Often, not always, they are motivated by values that elevate truth, conscience, and courage.

So when 300 scientists send a letter of protest challenging an authoritarian regime, that already has demonstrated willingness to use the full force of government agencies to silence opposition, and when called to account by Congress for doing so has had a high official invoke the 5th Amendment against incrimination, the collective voice of such eminent scientists should be listened to and given full credit.

One major argument presented by global warming alarmists is that “consensus” is on their side. Unfortunately, “consensus” also was on their side in the 1970’s when Time Magazine’s cover story warned of an impending ice age. Many fraudulent claims have enjoyed the warm, comforting feeling of “consensus”, including the single most influential graph in the history of climate science; the infamous “hockey stick”.

The “hockey stick” graph 15 or so years ago proposed something like “this was the hottest year of the hottest decade of the hottest century etc… “and its claim appeared in science journals, posters, international summits, government pamphlets, the Kyoto Protocols, classrooms everywhere, and even an Oscar winning movie. Now the “hockey- stick” concept of global climate change is widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC (according to Professor Don Easterbrook, PhD).  The “hockey stick” is now contradicted by thousands of published papers.

My point is not to debate the “hockey stick” or even climate change. My point is to declare that “consensus” is the weakest of weak arguments for anything. Yet it is invoked at the highest of levels and swallowed by the masses. One single, indisputable fact alone can destroy the “consensus” argument”.  The fact alone that the “consensus” argument is so often invoked is grounds for suspicion, even mirth.

The average man in the street, going about his normal business of whatever it may be is not in a position to deeply assess raw climate data and intelligently determine truth or error. Most of us may be experts in other areas but not in the science of global warming, aka climate change. But do not feel bad, for so are judges that sit on the bench juries that evaluate evidence in complex cases.

For this reason, common sense and centuries of jurisprudence acknowledge need for “expert witnesses” to help arrive at probable truth. Two qualities are required of an “expert witness”; a good reputation and acknowledged expertise in his field. The 300 scientists who sent their letter of protest to Congress are in every respect such “expert witnesses”.

So when 300 reputable scientists risk their reputations, friendships, and careers, and present solid evidence to support their positions, against a “consensus” known to use fraud and deceit, whose evidence of impending doom, their predictive models, are over 90% in error, who have everything to gain financially … I for one am inclined, without knowing anything more, to take the side of the brave 300 whistle blowers.

Here now is the article written by Richard Mann for American Thinker magazine:


300 Scientists send letter to Congress accusing NOAA of cooking the books on climate change … by Rick Moran  January 29, 2016

One of the least reliable sources for data on climate change is the US federal government. Now, a group of 300 scientists and academics want Congress to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for cooking the books on climate data in order to erase the pause in the rise in temperature cited by, among other sources, the IPCC.

Incredibly, the NOAA accumulated data by measuring the water temperature from the engine intake valves of ocean going cargo ships. The scientists want Congress to investigate whether the agency violated the Data Quality Act, which seeks to ensure the accurate dissemination of scientific information to the public.

Daily Caller:

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study last summer over concerns it was pushed out to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda. Democrats and the media have largely opposed the probe into NOAA scientists and political appointees, but Smith is determined to continue investigating. NOAA officials surrendered emails to congressional investigators in December.

“It is this Committee’s oversight role to ensure that federal science agencies are transparent and accountable to the taxpayers who fund their research,” Smith told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Americans are tired of research conducted behind closed doors where they only see cherry-picked conclusions, not the facts. This letter shows that hundreds of respected scientists and experts agree that NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data deserve serious scrutiny.”

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

This is a blatant attempt to politicize science by the administration and should be exposed for the dishonest research it is. The only question is who at NOAA was behind the attempt to whitewash the termperature hiatus and whose orders they were acting under.

There is yet to be a credible scientific explanation for the lack of rising temperatures despite models saying there should have been close to a one degree increase over the last 17 years. NOAA’s attempt to create an explanation out of whole cloth only shows the desperation of climate hysterics who are vigorously denying the facts in front of their face.
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s