21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

OPINION

In Their Own Words:
Climate Alarmists Debunk
Their 'Science'
Larry Bell Contributor
I write about aerospace, environment, energy, Second Amendment
policyFollow

Feb 5, 2013, 08:00am ESTThis article is more than 9 years old.

President Obama has put salvationfrom dreaded climate catastrophes
on his action agenda hot list.
During his inaugural address hesaid: “We will respond to the threatof climate change, knowing thatthe failure to do so would betray

U.S. President Barack Obama 2013 Presidential Inauguration Day(Photo credit: Glyn Lowe... [+]our children and future
generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees withthis assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming
judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact
of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”
This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He
previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention
that global warming was “not a hoax”, referred to recent droughts
and floods as “a threat to our children’s future”, and pledged tomake the climate a second-term priority.
As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might beappropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

1/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.
Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 havedecreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of
Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until aroundmidcentury.
As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of thejournal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been littlechange in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the U.N.
Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world
have experienced more intense and longer droughts, inparticular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in someregions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or
shorter, for example, in central North America andnorthwestern Australia.”
Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in totalenergy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low notencountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently
experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes inover a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm,
occurred more than seven years ago.
But supposing these recent circumstances were different…
because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of
those who the president claims “deny” that “overwhelming
science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we evenneed a word for it?)
The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke
the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that“science”. So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments thatsome of them have offered on this topic. These are but a verysmall sampling of my favorites.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

2/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political
Agendas:The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide
average temperature records measured over at least three
decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after
many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted
the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series ofinternational conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an
impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had
already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon
emissions.
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N.
Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed
the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way ofsaving the world will be for industrialized civilization tocollapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing
the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of statefor global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit
audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing
the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental
policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for
hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help
underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State
Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the
U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto]
must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence toback the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

3/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told
editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if thescience of global warming is all phony…climate change[provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice andequality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev
emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advancesocialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis
will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World
Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in theHague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why
the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European
Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is
instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one thatshould find a place within the World Environmental
Organization which France and the European Union would liketo see established.”
How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science:
For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of thesame researchers that are reported in the same year regardingwhether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.
First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D.
Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there isevidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcingsby greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical,
seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These
results point towards human influence on climate.”
Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D.
Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this:“Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem ofhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

4/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimatedthe spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it
with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the threeestimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with eachother…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence,that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been
detected.”
In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear fromlater, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had
any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming
or cooling!
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010,
advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion thatinternational climate policy is environmental policy. Instead,climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto theworld’s wealth...”The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy,a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat tohumanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a leadauthor for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a
quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as
scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on theother 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 therisk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, weneed to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s
imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media
coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, makesimplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the
doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the rightbalance is between being effective and being honest.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

5/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reportchapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog
appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of
the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed stateand none of the climate states in the models correspond evenremotely to the current observed state”.
Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones,
became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that
Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following
a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced“Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue
spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies
released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global
warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis tosuggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring:“What scientific, refereed publications substantiate thesepronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown aconnection between observed warming trends on Earth andlong-term trends of cyclone activity?”
Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007
report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth]seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming hasaltered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does
not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.”
After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author,
resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter
presenting his reasons.
Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:
A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that thispotential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC[tropical cyclone] activity.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

6/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported thisconnection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people weknow and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.”
Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously
flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC
reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mannand Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones
GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic
and should never have been published. I don’t want to be
associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”
Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very
deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest
presentations of model results by individual authors and by
IPCC …”
Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “Ifyou think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in thegreenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary
evidence of this, we could go through official [American
Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-inchief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”
A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mannreferred to two papers recently published in Climate Researchwith a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t
see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin[Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we haveto redefine what the peer review literature is."A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring
researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

7/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'(submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological andEnvironmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone
from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstructionthat we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong,biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could
really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of handas the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am reallysorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now
need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming
hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ isalways worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal
relationships.”
Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed
well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan
Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested:“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that toguid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong –not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers]
has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised
caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures
throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single
study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is justdownright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty
and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss thesefurther if necessary...”In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science isbeing manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

8/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very goodluck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to getaway with this much longer.”
Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers
will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions foradaptation to the projected regional climate change based onmodels that do not even describe and simulate the processes thatare the building blocks of climate variability.”
One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences:“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably...”The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:
As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox BusinessNews in January 2011: "We do not have any scientific proof that
we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in thelast 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics
to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amountof energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good forpeople and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer
world we can produce more food."
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting
unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "Apowerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grantmoney, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge
grants from major institutions, foundations, environmentalgroups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving
future generations. And all of these people have converged on
this issue."https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

9/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book,“The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature
editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of alooming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues
in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], butthey don't know what to do.”Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinatingclimate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have
proven to be incredibly costly.
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports thatfederal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003
to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period).
This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change
technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid tohelp other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1
billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy
subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climatechange programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus
Bill”.
Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that
we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, aclaim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally
unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions
are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. toredistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized
but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; andexpand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony
capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.
It is way past time to realize that none of this is really aboutprotecting the planet from man-made climate change. It neverwas.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

10/11

21/07/2022, 23:27

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

Follow

Larry BellI am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston
where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space
Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My
background deals extensively with research, planning and design ofhabitats, structures and other support systems for applications in spaceand extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new booktitled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global
Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered atwww.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book andviews can be found on my YouTube address:
http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption. Read Less
Editorial Standards

Reprints & Permissions

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=4b92829a68a3

11/11