Climate change
RECENTLY, there has been a frenzied focus across society to “inextricably link” the devastating drought and bushfires primarily to “runaway” man-made global warming (RMMGW).
Geoff Castle’s emotive letter (TC, 2/3) included the phrase “Welcome to the one degree world”, and in it stated that he feels he may need to become more “blunt” in his approach to overcome political “terminal collective climate denialism”.
There are three things I have learned in life to avoid falling for every new orchestrated catchcry and populist movement:
1. Fervency of belief is not an accurate measure of truth.
2. Those making weak points often yell the most loudly.
3. The wise think for themselves; they do not unquestioningly prostrate themselves before the self-appointed gatekeepers of claimed truth, no matter how strident their rhetoric.
There are incessant claims of “indisputable facts” backed by “empirical evidence” concerning RMMGW and also its impacts.
But many of these so-called facts are indeed disputable and have been challenged by eminent climatologists such as Judith Curry and Lennart Bengtsson.
Empirical (observational) evidence sounds so incontestable and objective; but consider the supposedly “authoritative” American scientific agency – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Professor David Dilley is a meteorologist, climatologist, paleoclimatologist and CEO of Global Weather Oscillations Inc.
Importantly, he is also a former NOAA meteorologist and in 2015 wrote an easily found essay entitled “Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle” in which he states: “In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions [about global warming] should show a connection to human activity … According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants … Most university research departments live or die via the grant system. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe, Australia and the United States.” Yes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
US climate scientist John Christy – the joint developer of reliable satellite global temperature data recording – has also made revelations about NOAA statistical fraud.
A 2018 article covering this noted that “adjustments” have been made to make data sets more “accurate” – but that it conveniently “creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s”.
Australian science presenter Joanne Nova’s website provides a wealth of alternative climate information with many links.
This includes the drought, bushfires, and the questionable actions of our own Bureau of Meteorology who she shows have engaged in climate data destruction and “correction” … moves which have (hardly surprisingly) cooled the past and enabled declarations of record heat.
Is all this genuine scientific endeavour, or is it science falsely so called? M.J. ELIAS, Toowoomba