MORE CLIMATE DISAGREEMENT

If you control the language, you control the discussion.

In that context, I use the term “climate disagreement” instead of “climate denial”.

“Climate disagreement” suggests there are differing points of view, without judging which of them is correct.  It respects each side.  “Climate denial” suggests one side is right and there are deniers who can’t accept that one and only right side.  It puts them in the same category as members of the flat earth society.

In point of fact, there is a lot of disagreement on what causes climate change.  But people who do not subscribe fully to the idea that it is anthropomorphic – i.e. human-caused – are systematically browbeaten, threatened and often punished into submission.

It takes a lot of courage to disagree with the “We say it’s man-made, so hand over those grants so we can continue  to research and re-prove it” crowd.

Well, here are three scientists who have that courage:   Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo and Dr. Craig D. Idso – along with a small group of distinguished academicians – who are on record as agreeing with them.

If you want to read their paper, which goes into great academic and statistical detail to dispute claims that the last several years are the warmest on record and prove they are the result of largely concocted data, be my guest.  Here’s the link.

But if you want the shortest version, here are the last two conclusion paragraphs:

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
warming. 

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings

Personally, I do not agree or disagree with the findings of this paper.  I’m no scientist and have no competency to do so.  But do I believe, as Dr’s Wallace, Aleo and Idso contend, that data are being played with to achieve desired results – i.e. results that “prove” global warming is significantly man-made?  I have read enough commentary from enough scientists who say as much to believe there is truth to that contention.

In any event, the purpose of this blog is not to make a conclusion one way or the other.  It is to remind readers that there are TWO SIDES to this issue – even if one of them is being suppressed every way possible.