Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare

When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago.

But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world’s primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members’ financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world’s greatest science fraud. In particular, they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels is leading to environmental catastrophe. You have been hearing about it for the past decade and more, with 21 candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the next election promoting some form of a Green New Deal—a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar power thereby returning society to the lifestyle of the 1880s.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in 1994 that radical greens had taken over the organization after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving him no choice but to resign. The takeover of environmental institutions by extremists is now almost complete, the most important of which may be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Donald Trump is aggressively trying to win back the EPA in the best interests of the nation, but it is an uphill battle as the climate cult has also taken control of academia, political parties, and governments themselves.

An example of how professional societies have apparently been hijacked by extremists concerns the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA). Allan MacRae, a prominent long-time member of APEGA, was named to receive its most distinguished lifetime achievement award in 2019. Then APEGA staff learned that MacRae had written publicly about the damage done to humanity and the environment by radical greens. APEGA leadership strongly condemned his comments and his award was withdrawn. It led MacRae to write “Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age,” which explains the APEGA award withdrawal and to support his contention that radical greens have done enormous harm to humanity and the environment with their destructive, misguided policies. MacRae writes, “APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground.”

Full story here

112 thoughts on “Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare”

1. Davis says:

Sadly, everyone, including scientists, are all now, “I will say what you pay me to say”.

• Allan MacRae says:

Let’s all take action against the takeover of our institutions by extremists.

Write your representatives stating you oppose the leftist takeover and name your institutions.

Be sure to write the President at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Thank you, Allan

• Martin Cropp says:

Allan
Congratulations on your nomination for the award.
The reasons cited above that they did not follow through only strengthen the reasons for nomination.
Martin

• otropogo says:

“…Let’s all take action against the takeover of our institutions by extremists.

Write your representatives stating you oppose the leftist takeover..”

Who gets to define “extremists”, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Secretary General of the UN? And what do “leftists” have to do with extremists?

I don’t believe our problems originate from extremists. I would say extremism is a product of our corporate, political, and religious culture of secrecy and deceit. Fukushima didn’t happen because of extremists, nor did Chernobyl.

I’m guessing they happened because incompetent and negligent bureaucrats were placed in charge of critical operations, and the warnings of competent technicians were suppressed and ignored.

But I can only guess, because secrecy and deceit still rule the world. Only now they’re backed up by deadly bolts delivered by anonymous drones instead of assassins wielding poison and daggers (except for the “old school” Saudi royals).

• Mr. says:

And the basis upon which they justify this to themselves is – “well, everyone is doing it, why shouldn’t we?”

The same rationale that people use to crib that little bit extra on their income tax deductions.

• The Expulsive says:

I have become quite upset with the non-scientific slant taken by both of the professional bodies I belong to, the Professional Engineers of Ontario and the Law Society of Upper Canada (I still do not recognise the name change pushed through against the wishes of members), but at least the recent Law Society election replaced the leadership that had promoted compelled speech.
The engineers I know understand the effect land use has on local climate and believe in the reduction of pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant, no matter how hard progressives want it to be. They understand that so called “carbon taxes” are just a money grab and support that the Province had reduced the deleterious effects of particulate and water pollution significantly, but you wouldn’t know that by reading the (now) automatic hat tip to climate change in everything the PEO speaks about.
We now have high water in Lake Ontario again, but does anyone but a few hydraulic engineers speak about how the control of water in Ontario has been mishandles by government?

2. R Shearer says:

I’ve almost resigned my membership a couple of times but they’ve backed off their alarmism at least a little.

I’d note that the leadership of these organizations typically earn over \$300K a year, often approaching \$500K with excellent benefits and expense accounts. They’re frequently traveling all over the world in business or first class. In some ways, they are like more socialist organizations with everyone equal but some more equal than others.

• Greg says:

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in 1994 that radical greens had taken over the organization after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving him no choice but to resign.

I think Patrick Moore clearly said it was marxists who had taken over , not radical greens. Essentially Greenpeace was all about radical greens until it got corrupted.

• MarkW says:

3. HotScot says:

Isn’t it interesting that the APEGA listened to Allan for his whole life then, at the 11th hour, decided to stop listening to him.

If they considered Allan to have conducted himself honourably and diligently throughout his entire working career, why would he not be considered to be conducting himself the same way over climate change? Shouldn’t he be the very dissenting voice they absolutely should be listening to?

I hope you tell them to stick their award where the sun don’t shine mate.

• J.H. says:

Excellent logic…. Unfortunately they don’t do logic.

• Mark says:

Nor do they do critical thinking.

• Xenomoly says:

If you disagree with the religion – you are cast out as a heretic.

• Pop Piasa says:

That’s this whole mass climate fanaticism in a nutshell. Cast out and demonized by the priests and the press.

• Insufficiently Sensitive says:

Isn’t it interesting that the APEGA listened to Allan for his whole life then, at the 11th hour, decided to stop listening to him.

That is the exact opposite of the scientific method, which welcomes challenges to hypotheses. It is mere self-interested political activism on stilts. The officers of APEGA should be scourged from the public square.

4. Poor Richard, retrocrank says:

The folks mentioned in this story are not alone. Ivar Giaever, who in 1973 shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, resigned from the American Physical Society when he disagreed with their stance on global warming. He is a serious scientist who does not does not act lightly.

• Jeff Alberts says:

Again, resigning means you’ve given up, and they win. I don’t find that heroic or commendable.

• Mike Jonas says:

Jeff, it’s trickier than that. If you have no voice in an organisation that you disagree with – ie. if they won’t listen – then you have little option but to resign. It might look like giving up, but the number of members that the organisation can claim to represent is reduced by one, and resignations from an organisation can weaken its reputation too.

• Saighdear says:

I concur, Mike, and come across Jeff’s comments quite often in Business – ie that I should be able to “plan ahead” for such obstacles… what planet do these fowk live on? Best Plan then, would be to do nothing – since we can’t plan to do everything to suit the whims of stupid fanatical zealots!
This whole argument was recently exemplified in a recent UK discussion re terrorists returning from Syria etc, – SHould they be allowed to use Mobilefones – allows them to coordinate their actions and thoughts….so should I asa Taxpayer fund their lifestyles, shold I asaFarmer contribute to their being fed, etc etc.
Take it to another level, should I support ANY organisation which does ANYTHING contrary to what I dislike? We support Microsoft with their products which w despise because of their attitude to upgrade rather than Sort, Automotive Manufr’s who support A.I. to take away Driver’s jobs on equipment etc . – ALL IN THE NAME OF Environmental issues of greater accuracy of whatever & Energy reduction ( think of Carbon Fooprint) to save the planet. Why do we continue to by their products to put money in the pockets of uninterested Company shareholders at the expense of the Workers? NOTHING to do with Sociaism in my book – just want to be able to do my OWN work (in) the way I want to do it.
I am the tenant of the Soil I live and work on: I want to do as I see fit and NOT be holden to ashareholder zealot far removed form my situation.

• ozspeaksup says:

I use a very old s/hand hand legal copy of xp presently on my very old s/hand pc thats about to give up the ghost. but we DO have the Linux option, and yes i dont buy anything from a company i dont approve of if theres any other option to pick, amazing how often you find you can DIY or go without too;-)

• Saighdear says:

Well I still have a parallel HDD running on my system bt HAD to take the plunge eventually last year. Being pragmatic ( ! ) First thoughts were -Why did I wait so long before installing TEN. Huh after around 6 weeks that delusional thoughts left me. Reality set in AGAIN -WHY do I listen to these Roadie types. I have so much grief now with this OS and compatibility issues which were Ok at the beginning. Updates! Who are the deluded idiots who sit at screens manufacturing problems for the Real World? I studied a Little programming many years ago to get the head around the idea of Logicl processes. Vehiclenot performing properly,Sir? – Lets see if there’s an UPDATE ! Seems our modern counterparts have lost their way – completely – both in Engineering & Reality, but also in Economic & Political terms

• Jeff Alberts says:

“I concur, Mike, and come across Jeff’s comments quite often in Business – ie that I should be able to “plan ahead” for such obstacles… what planet do these fowk live on?”

This has nothing to do with what I said.

• Jeff Alberts says:

Mike, I understand it can seem line a daunting situation. But, how strongly do you feel about it? IHMO, if you’re not willing to fight, then you obviously feel like it’s not worth fighting for.

I know I’m looking from the outside in, and this is just my opinion. But there has to be a better way than just resigning.

5. commieBob says:

Alberta! I am gobsmacked. It’s time for a members revolt. I’m sure there would be overwhelming popular support.

• 4 Eyes says:

Agreed. And then we’d see just how few members accept the faux science. It would be embarrassingly few i suspect

6. TDoyle says:

I agree with this article. I’ve been a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers since about 60 years. For many years it was a place I could go to keep current with my profession, to express new ideas, to acquire professional development education, and for socializing with my peers. I’ve served as an officer of several local sections and branches and served on many committees andpanels. Since about year 2000, the society has gradually transformed itself into a “green” orgaization. The leadership has bought into the CAGW nairitive hook, line and sinker. I can no longer relate to their publications because everything is described interms of reducing carbon footprint, sustainable design and construction, and other meaningless phrases. I’m retired now and I lament the fact that the old Society is not what it used to be.

• David Dibbell says:

Ditto for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I’ve been a member since my student days in 1976. ASME’s magazine, Mechanical Engineering, has drifted off into the “carbon pollution” nonsense and publishes articles that make absurd proposals to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, inject hydrogen gas into the Texas natural gas pipeline system, etc. etc. The magazine has not yet published any of my letters to the editor. It is very sad to see my profession, knowing perfectly well how heat engines work, fail to refute the notion of the climate crisis. It would only take a few well-composed illustrations of the power of weather to move heat upward to more easily escape to space, as the atmosphere responds to heat at the surface.

• E. Martin says:

Ditto again for the AICHE (Am. Institute of Chemical Engineers)

• Gerry, England says:

Yes, just the same at the Institute of Engineering & Technology in the UK. Their magazine could easily have been a supplement to the leftie Guardian newspaper. I found a 10 year old copy and it just showed how crap the current content is. The best part is a spoof column about a student from engineering parents. I cancelled my membership at the start of the year.

• Buckeyebob says:

Triple ditto for the American Chemical Society and for their anti-plastics stance.

• My professional organization is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). They don’t seem to beat the climate change drum much, so I’m still a member. One of my graduate school profs told us to become members of our professional organizations. So I remain in the IEEE, the IEEE Computer Society, and ACM (Association for Computing Machinery). (I have a masters in software engineering.)

The IEEE magazine is Spectrum. When NASA lost the Mars probe, NASA tried to blame to loss on wrong units. Spectrum reviewed this loss and weren’t very complementary to NASA (https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/robotic-exploration/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course). It’s probably one of the reasons I still stick with IEEE.

Jim

• Insufficiently Sensitive, MASCE says:

Agree with TDoyle. The ASCE magazine ‘Civil Engineering’ reads like a freshman brochure wisely guiding the incoming students on the principle that ‘science’ says CO2 is leading us to catastrophe, therefore ‘we’ must be sustainable, low-carbon followers of UN decrees on human activities and control of world business practices. There’s none – none – of the skepticism of the scientific method in this new politicized condescending ‘professional’ magazine, which clearly regards dissenting members neither as professionals nor scientifically educated. The old letters-to-editors column is long abolished, as it has been in our local paper and the Economist and many other periodicals which used to register reader comments.

7. Tom Halla says:

This would seen to be an example of Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, that people who master the internal politics of an organization usually end up running it, often to the detriment of the purported purpose of the organization.
If they also have an ideology to pursue, it only happens faster. Consider the US school system, which is run for the benefit of the administrators and the union executives, who are also leftists and feminists. Actually providing the students with an education is purely secondary.

8. Steve Skinner says:

I realized in the early 90’s that ASME did not represent my values, and never sent them another dime.

• John says:

It was in the late 90’s early 2000’s for me that I dropped the ASME.

9. James Clarke says:

I remember how proud I was to become a student member of the American Meteorological Society back in the 1970s, then a full member in the early 1980s. I spent the mid to late 1990s wondering what the hell was going on. I had such a naive notion about the sanctity of science that it took me 10 years of denial to finally realize that my trust in the society was misplaced. It was no longer a scientific society, but a political society, and I did not agree with the politics. I gave up my membership in the early 2000’s and I have never regretted it.

Fortunately, it is no longer important for my job security to be an AMS member, but for many it is a requirement. The penalty for leaving a professional society can be high for many. I wonder how well their ranks would be doing if there was no penalty or stigma for members to leave!

• Roger Caiazza says:

I had a very similar experience. I tried to reason with the Society, dropped my membership but continued to support their scholarship programs and then finally gave up all support because of their overt political agenda. Hugely disappointing and I cannot help but think that someday when the catastrophe does not materialize I think they regret this.

• Cosmic says:

Yep. I never joined in first place, but attended meetings nonetheless. The recent one I was at had the announcement at the end of meetimg that the next meeting would be with prof Abrams a loudmouthed fool from st Thomas in st Paul. I was going to go and challenge, but couldn’t make it. The premise of the thing alluded to the 12yrs BS. I can’t take the idiocy. I wouldn’t give them a penny. 32yr in the field meteorologist…

10. Gary Pearse says:

This is not accidental. When the Iron Curtain cane down freedom rushed in, but little notice was taken of the aparatchiks coming out. Moore notes the takeover of Greenpeace in 1994 by “radical greens” which really were socialist ideologues who saw green as a good cover. I have no link, but was told a former Stasi chief went directly to Greenpeace. They are nothing if not patient. They took over leadership of key institutions, academic etc., and brought in likeminded from the general population and educated a couple of new generations. Our own children are now working us over.

• Graemethecat says:

There is a Youtube video of an interview with a former KGB officer named Yuri Bezmenov. His account of Communist infiltration and subversion of Western institutions is terrifying.

• F1nn says:

Graemethecat

Thanks for the hint! That put pieces to the puzzle in order.

It´s scary how easy it is to brainwash whole nations. I´ve been watching these 20-30ish people and I´ve seen that they are kind of different human race. There´s something very wrong in our school system. And we have lost that generation.
I´ve talked years to my wife these things (she probably thinks I am lunatic paranoid, which is of course possible). I show this video to her and she looked at me and said “you´ve talked these things many years, how do you know?” Well, I talk what I see and I think a lot. Thinking is not in fashion any more, and that is the reason why almost everybody takes all kind BS as absolute truth.

• Crispin in Waterloo says:

Gary P

I feel we should consider there was room for the fronting of organisations that wanted to undermine and destroy Greenpeace as well. When the FBI decided to destroy the Black Panthers they infiltrated it with people who would radicalism it and create internal conflict. They were successful. By the time the leadership group fell apart, there was only one member of the National executive who was not an FBI informant.

Similarly, GP seems to have been infiltrated by so many organisations with their own goals, it became a battleground for new and old ideologies. You are correct that some are playing a long game but in reality whose interest do they actually represent? Hard to say.

Now and then something indicative pops up: a call to end capitalism, to end democratic processes, the rule of “experts”, a planned economy for everyone in the interests of efficiency and so on.

In the meantime the defective old world order institutions stumble from catastrophe to catastrophe with a fix for every foible. We need a new way to organise, and it’s not going to come from the past. 1930 has nothing to offer us.

11. HD Hoese says:

I have posted some of this before but it is worth repeating.

Sigma Xi puts out a somewhat useful Smart Brief for members. This is from one I got recently, not so smart.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/health/carbon-dioxide-world-intl/index.html
(“The release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has already led to a 1C rise in global temperatures, and we are likely locked in for a further rise, if more immediate action is not taken by the world’s governments. ”)

And this–“MADISON, WI—A free, public screening and discussion of the Netflix documentary film Chasing Coral— winner of a 2017 Sundance Film Festival Audience Award—will come to Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday, November 17, as part of the Sigma Xi STEM Art and Film Festival. Tickets are available on Eventbrite. ” “The film shows how coral reefs are dying on a massive scale due to climate change and hopes to serve as a wake-up call to audiences that action is needed now to address environmental issues.”

Sigma Xi, a National Honor Research Society, in probable violation of its constitution, is putting out a call to save the planet. As an emeritus member I pointed this out, but was ignored by the officers. I forgot to mention that CNN where they get many Briefs is too difficult to watch because of its continual negativity and anger. At a minimum they could find primary sources. I suspect that it is easier to do it this way than actually review journals.

From Sigma Xi Constitution —
“ No significant part of the activities of the Society shall consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. The Society shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” Not sure what it says about Art and Film, if anything. I doubt if I will stay in the organization much longer.

12. markl says:

Anyone claiming people/groups/organizations/governments etc. falling in line with AGW narrative for other than scientific reasons is branded a conspiracy theorist. The money and effort put into perpetuating the AGW meme is astounding. The effort crosses all lines and eclipses all else as the greatest scam ever perpetrated on humanity. If it weren’t so destructive you would have to admire how effective it’s been.

13. As Dr. Patrick Moor noted, this started following the collapse of
Communism in the old USSR.

It has been said that all of the closet Communist who lived in the West, and
enjoyed the benefits of that societies high standard of living, still dreamed
of how much better a World Communism Government would be, and thus
switched to Global Warming as their vehicle to bring this about.

They have largely succeeded in taking over these institutions mentioned.

MJE VK5ELL

14. Psychological societies of Australia, USA and UK are in lock-step with the climate change lunacy. So what if your kid is depressed, maybe even talking about self-harm, because they believe the nonsense being shoved at them by media, social media, schools, and consequently don’t think they have any kind of future?
The psych solution is to give them more of the same.

15. People who study linear systems know that if you change the input by a factor of $\displaystyle a$, then the output also changes by a factor of $\displaystyle a$. For linear systems, you can divide the input in its component parts, run each part individually through the system, and then sum the results. This is called superposition and is a primary property of linear systems.

Non-linear systems do not have this property. Whereas a linear system is the sum of its parts, a non-linear system may be more or less a sum of its parts. The weather, and by extension the climate, are non-linear, chaotic systems. They don’t have to respond to changes in their inputs, they may respond in some non-linear fashion to changes in their inputs, or they may change or not change in spite of changes made to their inputs.

The idea that a temperature rise in the climate must be caused by something is linear thinking. So there is no need to blame this rise on CO2, Sunspots, orbital variation, or the price of rice in China–the climate can change its temperature all by itself. Anyone who’s studied non-linear systems for five minutes or non-linear, chaotic systems for ten minutes knows this.

This blaming climate change on CO2 is smoke screen. It’s not about the science or the math. The actual goal is power, control, money, and taxes (not necessarily in that order).

Jim

• quentinf says:

Correct about linear systems etc. But the whole CO2 scam is not about anything other to rid the world of use of hydrocarbon fuels, by the looney left. Of course cooperations can make huge profits out of it(scam) too.

• F.LEGHORN says:

You are mostly right. But their end goal is world government and socialism for all. Fossil fuel banning is just one step in their plan.

• Greg Cavanagh says:

The purpose of hitting the transport and manufacturing sector is to cause dissidents in the population. The angrier the population gets, the more forceful the government gets. This allows them to gain more control in order to control the riots. It is exactly what they want.

• RicDre says:

Jim Masterson, well said. I have made this same argument to various people over the years, but I generally don’t make much headway as I find that most of the people I talk to aren’t really familiar with Non-linear Chaotic systems. There was a PBS/NOVA program called “The Strange Science of Chaos” shown in 1986 that is useful as an intro to the science of Chaos. Here is the link to that program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG5JHpUfQyc

Same here but its a problem in that you are often talking to mathematically illiterate people. I did come up with the idea of say using the tides as a metaphor.

The tides are the product of an essentially periodic driver, the moon’s orbit around the earth, with subsequent effects to do with local geography etc. They can be readily modelled using Fourier series. No one uses linear line of best fit without first preprocessing data to ensure a proper length of sample over time vs component periods etc. i.e. no one uses statistical analysis based on completely random data intended to find a statistical mean for data that is know to reflect non linear and non random mechanisms.

You can then make a similar argument for global temperatures, i.e. that they are driven by periodic components.

I hope they can listen for long enough.

• RicDre says:

Komrade Kuma: I suspect if I use the term “Fourier series” with mathematically illiterate people I will get the same eyes-glazed-over look as I get when I say “Chaotic systems”. I do like to use familiar things as examples of systems that can become chaotic; two of my favorites are mentioned in the NOVA program in the link above: 1) a dripping faucet and 2) smoke rising from a cigarette.

• Ian Wright says:

my favourite term is stochastic. I have tried to introduce it at a local govt level to try explain non-linear natural systems in natural hazard work but was told it is too scientific. And there lies in the problem people do not understand the complexities

• That’s not to mention Fourier and Laplace transforms which are used to solve linear differential equations.

Jim

16. Colin Smith says:

Fees have gone up beyond inflation and certainly beyond any salary hikes each year, and there seem to always be heaquarter upgrades (that only benefit those living in the vicinity) and all sorts of harebrained online schemes.

Mere recognition and support of members seems to be an empire building afterthought.

ASHRAE is in the same group, promoting climate change for the financial benefit of its members.
Sad state of affairs, I quit several years ago.

I noticed this ‘change’ in my final year at university in the early 1990s, and have never been back. Research went from treating everyone equally, and from allowing social variety and culturual expression within reasonable limits and with feedback with regards to various social and other norms, to treating students according to whether or not they conformed to how researchers wanted them to be, often in a pre-determined fashion, which automatically left out about half the students.

This change occurred as a direct result of commercialisation of research, which also attracted opportunists, and where it became much more like a private company, where someone could be ignored, fired or simply sidelined for any reason that researchers seemed fit. There were no contracts back then between researchers and students , (but I suspect there are now), so there was no consequence of carrying out research in this way, it was much more like a ‘used car’ business model, where students were seen as commodities to be exploited, but I’m not sure about contractual arrangements now, which would certainly address some of the above.

To take just one of many examples, if a student wasnt ‘committed’ to a career in research, but wanted to enter industry, this automatically meant they were less useful in the long run fo research purposes and there was therefore less incentive to train them, since they would be leaving in a year or two anyway. These were left out of access to research materials and supervision. I actually saw this happen. Within what was formerly petroleum based research to enter the petroleum industry, was taken over by career-based environmental research, with only those committed to a career in environmental research science then given due access to necessary research materials. The overal result-the only people doing research are a certain type of career-based research person to begin with, which logically and by extension, also means only certains kinds of ‘science’ will likely result. The ‘science’ will ultimately reflect what benefits the research field financially-the checks and balances that were there before have largely been eradicated. This has enormous implications.

19. The mention about Green peace and its takeover, reminds me of the way
the Reds tried to take over the Union movement in both the UK and here in
Australia.

Union meetings are a part of the system, but most union members come home
from work tired and don’t want to attend. So the dedicated Communists do
so attend and over time they end up in the key positions.

One reason that PM Menzies had such a long period in office was that
the largely Catholic members of the Union movement broke away from
the unions and formed both a union movement and a political party of
their own, “”The Democratic Labour Party”” which voted with Menzies
Liberal Country Parties for many years .

Re. the Union movement in the UK, recommended reading is Frederick
Forsyth’s “The Forth Protocol”” its scary stuff, and I can see that it could
have succeeded in real life. The Green movement is just such a scheme,
find or create a cause, then make it bigger, then take it over.

The book is a very god read.

MJE VK5ELL

20. Mike Maguire says:

I was a member of the American Meteorological Society for 25 years, including being recognized with the television broadcast seal of approval. One of the reasons that I stopped paying my dues is that I retired from television but another was how extreme and one sided their position had become………..even as many members/meteorologists disagreed with their official view.

Related to this from “The Weather Channel” some here might recall this incident, triggered by their so called top climate expert:

“Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for (AMS) Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics”

Knowing the extreme position of the AMS is what gave her the gumption to call for such an outrageous anti science call for action.

“AMS Statement on Climate Change
Posted on August 27, 2012”
by Judith Curry

https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/27/ams-statement-on-climate-change/

I also received Scientific American for over 20 years. Same thing with them and articles like this:

“Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/?redirect=1

Here’s one of the most absurd statements about climate/weather in history from that article:
“Summer ice in the Arctic hit a new low in 2012, and now some scientists say there is likely a link between that meltdown and the record-breaking drought that caused an estimated \$28 billion in damage across the United States”

As an operational meteorologist in the commodities industry, one of the things that I do is predict crop conditions based on the effects of weather(and how the price will react).
The US Corn belt went from 1988 thru 2018, 31 growing seasons with only that 1 widespread major drought. Not only is that a record for the LEAST amount of drought by a wide margin(when the historical average was to have 3 droughts during that period) but crops yields have been soaring higher, not in spite of climate change but because of it.

Show me on this graph of soybean yields over the past 30 years, where we see the negative impact of atmospheric CO2 soaring higher? Yields have doubled. The 6 highest years were the last 6 years. Oh, and those were also the years with the highest CO2 and some of the warmest for global temperature averages.
One reason that the 2012 drought was not worse on the soybean crop was because higher CO2 levels allowed the soybeans to be more water efficient. Yields might have been 30% lower if CO2 levels were still back around 300 ppm. We also saw rains increase during August of 2012(too late to help the corn) and beans that would have been dead by then in the old atmosphere, were dormant, just hanging on long enough to spring back to life……………thanks to the extra CO2.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php

This was the real world, where real people, animals and real plants live with increasing CO2, not the computer modeled world that has consistently called for increasing crop adversity and lower yields and other things………..like dying polar bears.

21. Hocus Locus says:

“thereby returning society to the lifestyle of the 1880s”

You’ll have to go back farther than that, thems was coal burnin’ years. Medieval Times at least, human slavery and serfdom. With a little dabble of meds before they too run out as factories rust and Universities devolve into previous forms and doctors become leeches again.

Maybe we’ll luck out this time and leeches will fill the niche to literally evolve into doctors. They’re already helping arthritis patients.

22. Martin Cornell says:

If “President Donald Trump is aggressively trying to win back the EPA” he would have months ago formed the President’s Commission on Climate [Change] [Science], with Dr. Happer leading the effort. This would expose the shady basis of the EPA. What’s keeping him from doing this?

• Rotor says:

Good question Martin.
I’ve contacted the White House about the Happer Commission.
Maybe we need a concerted effort from WUWT to push the issue.

• Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) says:

Trump has been a big let down on climate – indeed, I would go so far as to say he’s done the very minimum that he could that would avoid him being openly outed as supporting the climate cult.

23. Tired Old Nurse says:

I suppose it is all-pervasive. Even the American Nurses Association (Not a member, it is a wholly poiitical group) has a stance on climate change. What in Hell do nurses know about climate science?

24. When climate activists cannot get a professional society on board, it’s no impediment: they just lie about it.

Here’s the California Governor’s Office list of “scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action,” as if that were actually what the climate debate is about:

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

There are two problems with that.

Problem #1. They’re setting up a straw-man.

straw man n. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

The climate debate has never been about whether human activity affects the Earth’s climate. The Earth’s climate certainly does change, and mankind does affect it. The debate is over the scale of climate change, its attribution (how much of it is caused by mankind), and whether the net effects are beneficial or harmful.

There’s no scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is harmful. That’s why climate activists resort to bludgeoning straw men, and it’s also why when climate activists survey scientists about their opinions on climate change, they don’t ask whether climate change is harmful, because if they did then their surveys wouldn’t show a consensus.

Problem #2. They lie.

Even though the “position” for the Calif. Gov. climate propagandists claim support is a “gimme,” they still lied about who is on board.

On that list you’ll find the Geological Society of Australia (GSA). But they don’t link to a position statement for the GSA. Do you wonder why not?

It’s because there actually is no GSA position statement on climate change.

Their March and June 2013 newsletters (TAG 166 & TAG 167, or here) illustrate the ongoing lively debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change.

This is the background:

In 2009, the GSA’s Executive Committee issued a statement in support of global warming alarmism, but they subsequently withdrew it due to intense criticism from the Society’s members.

On p. 9 of the June 2013 newsletter (TAG 167) you’ll read that in 2010 an independent poll of GSA members found that 53% disagreed with the Executive Committee’s 2009 statement. So, in 2012, the Executive Committee tried again. They drafted a new, more balanced position statement. That’s from pp. 6-7 of the Dec. 2012 newsletter (TAG 165, or here).

The new statement more accurately reflected the Members’ beliefs. But the Society’s members were so divided on the subject, and the debate was so rancorous, that they finally gave up entirely on trying to reach agreement, as Jo Nova reported:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-science-hopelessly-politicized-geological-society-of-australia-gives-up-on-making-any-statement/

That’s why the GSA takes no position on climate change — not that the Calif. Gov. office cares.

25. Actuary says:

You can add the North American actuarial profession to this sad list. From the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to the Society of Actuaries, the professional organizations have abandoned objective analysis and commentary to become shills for climate alarmism. The Actuaries Climate Index is a key example of the actuarial profession going “all in”.

• Solomon Green says:

The UK actuarial profession is just as bad. After more than fifty years membership I quit for a number of reasons but one was that it no longer supports debate.
As regards Climate, the profession has decided that the science is settled although, as a number of senior actuaries have pointed out, the statistics upon which climate science models are built have no reliable predictive validity.
Even if the data is not flawed by adjustments, there are too many assumptions to justify the confidence that the advocates of CAGW place on their beliefs. But, rather than debate the mathematics, the true believers prefer to censor the opposition.
According to friends in Australia the actuarial profession there is just as bad. Let us hope that with the re-election of Scott Morrison, the political climate in Australia will become more open-minded.

26. John Robertson says:

The Long March through the Institutions.
We were warned,but they pulled it off anyway.
I have yet to see any evidence that a kleptocracy can be reformed using Roberts Rules of Committees.
Most of these heavily politicized bodies will just have to fade away.
An interesting side effect of these committees throwing their “Authority” behind the Cult of Calamitous Climate, is that they have thrown their authority away.
Only a fool continues to fund an organization that openly works against their interests.

27. John F. Hultquist says:

About control of Requests for Proposals (RFPs):

In the USA, many years ago (? following Sputnik – 4/Oct/57) universities began to respond strongly to government funding. Within 20 years the funding formula for universities was transitioned to require the “overhead” and more of federal support.
In January 20, 1993, Al Gore became Vice-POTUS.
By influence and appointments Gore and his ilk were able to lead the global warming cadre within the research sponsoring agencies.
University researchers had to respond to the RFPs or go without funding.

Simultaneously, within universities job security, promotion, and salaries became (almost) dependent on the money and publications received via successful competition for the federal money.
As is often said: The rest is history.

28. Sally G says:

Have to confess… One of the benefits of my not particularly looming retirement will be extinguishing my membership with the professional body I am forced to be a part of by my employer, and by law.

Once upon a time, I was scheduled to give a talk on climate change to my peers, organised by the professional body, and it sold out immediately. 24 hours later the professional body cancelled the talk despite a strong shout out of support from members. When I ended up giving a very mild talk on Antarctic geology, most of the room got up and left – having forewarned me they were not upset at my talk – they wanted to send a message to the committee.

Fast forward to the present and nothing has changed… They wanted to do a position statement with a glowing endorsement of catastrophic climate change, but got severely muted by the members. However, now they have found a way around that (ie form a small committee not consult with the members) and the next ‘position statement’ will undoubtedly not be voted on by the members (can’t make that mistake twice!), and from initial buzz will be far more in line with the political point of view than that of the actual engineering and geological membership!

29. Phillip Bratby says:

It’s the same in the UK, with all the professional institutions that I am aware of, promoting climate change.

• Saighdear says:

haaah! Yes indeed… of all that SHOULD KNOW Better.. the IAgrE of all. Disgusted. Carbon Footprints….and yet the Manufacturers provide more & bigger machinery. Mobile pelletisers – so you move great weights of machine uphill/down dale etc. Large crop sprayers,seed& Fert spreaders etc etc. Not all our fields are level – so go figure the energy wasted in lifting a heavy machine up the hills , and the renewed studies of soil damage due to field traffic ….. all stuff been researched 40 yrs ago ( and now forgotten ?)

30. Zigmaster says:

It’s not just scientific institutions, government, religions , academia and the media, but also big business both the corporations and the institutional memberships. I thought it would be good to join the Australian Institute of Company Directors . However any discussion about climate change was based on the assumption that it is happening it’s dangerous , it’s mans fault and if your a director you better make sure your company makes plans for it. Needless to say one year of membership was more than I could stomach.

31. Liam says:

The unscrupulous conduct is reinforced by a symbiotic relationship between the science industry, represented by scientific institutions, and government agencies, which dole out public funds to promote the non- and often anti-scientific activity. See for example:

Unless the loop is broken, the taxpayer funded corruption will steadily carry the public and science into the abyss.

• Saighdear says:

Aye, it’s that you ‘must have a hunger for compliance’ nowadays to get on.

32. MarkW says:

I’ve lost track of the number of trolls who have proclaimed that the fact that most of these professional societies are drinking the climate change kool-aid, is proof that climate change is real.

• Greg Cavanagh says:

Yes, it’s a powerful aphrodisiac to their belief. And it’s impossible to counter such a belief when almost all of the science organisations publish support for it.

One has to have a critical mind not fooled by bluffery to see behind the curtain of deceit.

It is deceit too, as some have pointed up above; the members do not support the statements put out by their institutions. So they find workarounds to put out statements that their members don’t support, and refuse to entertain any discussion on the matter. For what purpose? They no longer represent their members. What are they thinking?

33. The January 2002 issue of Scientific American ran a hit piece on Bjørn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” I don’t really agree with Lomborg’s view of climate change, but I agreed less with Scientific American’s view. That’s when I canceled my subscription to SA for their bogus hit piece. They wouldn’t even let Lomborg respond.

It’s interesting, but one would think the magazine “Skeptical Inquirer” wouldn’t buy into this global warming nonsense–but they do. It was easier to cancel my subscript to SA than SI.

Jim

34. Geoff Sherrington says:

From the start, the ready endorsement of global warming hypotheses by the learned societies provided strong reason for uncertain people to accept global warming without doing their own inquiry and validation. Thus, many people were quick converts with little reason to doubt.
In time, history will not be kind to the societies. In the several cases where a society has given some details of how it did or did not plumb the attitudes and science of its members, it is suggestive that few if any of the societies researched the issues adequately to honestly represent members.
I am particularly concerned by the dogmatic Royal Society of London actions. Aces strong personalities, some with undoubted achievements in their fields, leaned on reputation to advance their views in the climate field, sometimes irrespective of their climate understanding.
In this way, proper science was debased. Badly, hopefully not irreversibly. Shame.

35. John F. Hultquist says:

Long ago, the Royal Society was informed of global warming.

http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

LONG POST WITH PHOTOS submarines and ice etc

“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

*13 President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council,
Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
20th November, 1817.

36. brent says:

When the history of this scam is written, and it can’t come too soon, people will marvel at how supposed “science” lost it’s way at the behest of the CAGW Godfathers,Maurice Strong whose formal education was limited to high school and a British Diplomat, Crispin Tickell who read history at university (and is the younger cousin of Aldous and Julian Huxley)

Live & Learn: Maurice Strong
I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.

Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.

Strong’s “contribution” was as a “promoter” (snake oil salesman), and those who benefited from the money and prestige lapped it up

• Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic) says:

It’s one of the most fascinating subjects: how will the future write up the history of the scam. There’s no doubt, that even with constantly meddling with data to try to make it fit their cult, that eventually the data from the actual climate will beat this cult into submission. However, how will that be written up? That’s a bit unknown.

There are two ways that these kinds of cockups by academia usually get dealt with:
1. Blame previous generations: That our generation get moulded into the future equivalent of “flat earthers” … that whenever anyone refuses to believe the evidence they get likened to our generation which will be portrayed as ALL global warming climate cultists.
2. Blame scapegoats outside academia: That academia controls the narrative (as they have historically) and that the blame for the climate cult gets pinned on small groups outside academia, with academia doing as it always does … stealing the role of “the enlightened ones guiding society”.

But, something new has happened with the internet. Academia no longer control history. They might still write historical books, but today any researching interested in history is now able to publish and in many ways on a equal footing to academics. This means that rather than academia writing up the scam in order to cast (the then present) academia in the best possible light, we are likely to see a more realistic version of history being written in the future. They will not be able to write out their blatant lunacy from history as they have with so many other incidents from Piltdown to the Ether.

As a result, academia will find it is impossible hide its direct role in creating the scam and as such its reputation will be severely dented, even fatally demolished. And personally, I think that may be the most dramatic change we ever see in our lifetimes. It certainly could fundamentally change the structure of our society and who is considered to be “authorities” on subjects.

• brent says:

In this earlier presentation Lindzen comments sardonically
“By the way I should mention at the beginning of the 20th century, the counterpart of the environmental movement was eugenics. All the best people displayed their virtue by supporting that”

Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
https://tinyurl.com/pkd7w7q

After WWII, by uniquely demonizing Germans, the support for Eugenics which was broad amongst elites in all the Western countries was politically conveniently overlooked.

Before any history can be written, we need to win the war. We need the good UK citizens to honour and remember the leadership they have provided in the past, because we badly need another Finest Hour

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/their-finest-hour/

I don’t want another Scientocracy
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/27/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/#comment-2666378

Best Regards
brent

37. brent says:

Physicians, Climate Change and Human Health
The theme of the World Health Organisation (WHO) initiated 2008 World Health Day, held on 7 April 2008, was Protecting Health from Climate Change.1 Communities and organisations around the world hosted activities to establish greater public awareness of the health consequences of the climate changes that we are experiencing. WHO has specifically put a great effort into increasing awareness of the effects of global warming and other climate related factors that impact on human health. We, as physicians, also have an important and potentially major role to play in this exercise.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074818/

38. Average Joe says:

Please oh please guys just take the time to examine the evidence yourselves. Theres no question that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared. Take a moment to look at how the amount we emit compares to any time in earths geologic history. I suggest starting with the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum or the triassic extinction. And sure science can have an agenda, especially privately funded research, but governments, universities, and other research organizations worldwide agree that this is a serious problem. Besides, think about who benefits from people believing that all of this is false. Im no expert, and i hate being lied to as much as the next guy. But it seems that those who have business interests in the remaining fossil fuel reserves are misleading the public to an extortionate degree, at a great disservice to humanity as a whole. Also, if approached in a sensible way (unlike the unrealistic Green New Deal), solving the greenhouse gas problem can boost the economy, create more jobs, give us national energy security, and a cleaner and more healthy environment. Its a complex issue that is difficult to understand, but i mean the world has already warmed by a large margin in just the past 30 years or so. And changes for the worse have already become apparent and will continue unless we take the initiative to work together and solve this. Think about why you crack your car windows on a hot summer day. Its the greenhouse effect. We are essentially rolling up earths windows by increasing the heat trapping capacity of the atmosphere.

39. Dave Stolpman says:

The leftward march of institutions is well-documented and previously summarized as “O’Sullivan’s Law” named after the British journalist John O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan’s Law holds that “all organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” I believe this to be correct and it applies equally to professional societies (AMA, ABA, and many of the scientific societies described in this article and comments) but also to governmental organizations , academic institutions, and large public or private corporations (think Silicon Valley). It is truly amazing, and in a way reassuring, that despite the overwhelming pressures brought to bear by all these left-leaning institutions, so many clear thinking individuals remain. As they say, the truth will out.

40. Great Blog

41. Tripp Funderburk says:

This website wants everyone to believe that every science organization in the world is corrupted by money for science research? There is not one science organization that shares the view that climate change is not happening. That is a major coincidence or a massive scandal that every science organization is lying and is corrupted to support climate science.
https://blog.sfgate.com/gleick/2010/03/15/climate-change-deniers-versus-the-scientific-societies-of-the-world-who-should-we-listen-to/

• CatB says:

It is telling that (1) the endorsement of human caused climate change by science organizations is universal, yet (2) the preponderance of those organizations have no expertise on the subject – their only connection is aspirational: Climb onto the Bandwagon.

• Tripp Funderburk says:

CatB, you state that the preponderance of the science organizations that all support the consensus that man’s activities are causing climate change “have no expertise on the subject.” However, you do not address the fact that every science organization that does have direct expertise on climate issues agrees that man is causing climate change. It is a mighty big bandwagon. There are no legitimate science groups that have not joined the bandwagon?

• Tripp Funderburk wrote, “CatB… every science organization that does have direct expertise on climate issues agrees that man is causing climate change. It is a mighty big bandwagon…”

That’s like saying, “all the major American political parties support prosperity, that’s a mighty big bandwagon.” It lumps climate alarmists and skeptics of climate alarmism together, pretending that they agree, just as the “prosperity issue” lumps Keynesian Democrats and Supply-Sider Republicans together.

Pretending that the climate debate is over whether man causes climate change is straw-man argumentation:

straw man n. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

The climate debate has never been about whether human activity affects climate. The Earth’s climate certainly does change, and mankind certainly does affect it. The debate is over its scale and attribution (how much of it is caused by mankind), and whether the net effects are beneficial or harmful.

There’s no scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is harmful. That’s why climate activists resort to bludgeoning straw men. It’s also why, when climate activists survey scientists about their opinions on climate change, they don’t ask whether climate change is catastrophic, or even merely harmful: because if they did then their surveys would not show a consensus.

If you learn more about climate change, you’ll discover that the best evidence shows that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and higher CO2 levels are beneficial, for both mankind and natural ecosystems.

• brent says:

Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’
I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/27/why-i-dont-believe-in-science/

• brent says:

Climate Scientist Michael Mann Congratulates Identity Thief Peter Gleick for Receiving his Carl Sagan Award
Identity thief Peter Gleick, who impersonated a Heartland Director while serving as AGU Ethics Chairman, and whose swag of rather boring stolen Heartland emails somehow got spiced up with a a nasty forgery, has just been congratulated by Michael Mann for receiving his Carl Sagan Science Popularization Award.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/02/climate-scientist-michael-mann-congratulates-identity-thief-peter-gleick-for-receiving-his-carl-sagan-award/

• Peter Gleick created the nasty forgery.

There is no reasonable doubt about that fact. In fact, the only reason Gleick got caught at the identity theft is that some astute observers (including Steve Mosher) first recognized the distinctive idiosyncrasies of Gleick’s own writing, in the text of the nasty forgery.

DeSmogBlog then distributed the stolen documents and the forgery, on Gleick’s behalf.

Details here:
https://tinyurl.com/fakegate

I’m not surprised that Michael Mann wasn’t bothered by it. The Gleick/Fakegate scandal was helpful for Mann: Gleick’s dishonesty probably helps distract attention from Mann’s:
https://tinyurl.com/climategate4

• brent says:

Thanks Dave,
I don’t like to give up on anyone. However quite frankly I do triage very quickly now with CAGW true believers. That Mr.TF would show up here again considering his past conduct, and referencing none other than Gleick as an “authority” to be “trusted”,( and considering Gleick’s past conduct) is really quite disappointing.

• Tripp Funderburk says:

Brent, so sorry to disappoint you. Since you reference my past conduct, let’s review that. I have had a public disagreement and debate with Jim Steele, a former Jr. High Teacher and “past Director Sierra Nevada Field Campus.” Apparently, the Field Campus is a camp where anyone can take a class in bird calls, butterflies to bats to landscape painting in the summer months. Mr. Steele has no published peer-reviewed science. However, he publishes long, non-peer-reviewed essays on blogs that question climate science. Amazingly, all of his essays are about how melting ice does not effect polar bears to hot water not being a problem for coral reefs. All of his essays conclude that climate change is not the cause of any of the environmental challenges facing the world experiencing rapid increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Mr. Steele wrote a couple of essays on this blog and others claiming that coral bleaching was not a concern, and that coral bleaching is a magical adaptation that allows instant adaptation by symbiont shifting and hence climate change is no problem for coral reefs. He also wrote an essay highlighting that there were some coral reefs in Indonesia that experienced stress and bleaching due to abnormal high tides and some how this proved that the massive, global coral bleaching that killed half the corals on the Great Barrier Reef was somehow not due to climate change or global warming.

These articles were transparently wrong and silly if they weren’t exploited by skeptics to try and pretend that global coral bleaching was not a devastating and obvious result of climate change and global warming. We are losing ecosystems and some write essays to pretend it is not a concern. To pretend that low tides in Indonesia had something to do with 2 years of coral bleaching on the GBR is beyond parody. Corals were bleaching down to 80 feet. Half the corals on a 1500 miles of the GBR died due to heat stress. It was not 2 years of low tides. Also, if bleaching provides miraculous instantaneous adaptation, why did half the coral on a 1500 mile stretch die?

I tried to call Mr. Steele to explain to him that I have witnessed and studied coral bleaching in Thailand, Florida, and Honduras. It is clearly due to hot water that was exacerbated by rising global temperatures. NOAA can predict bleaching with precision based on temperatures and forecasts for hot conditions. This is relatively straightforward. The globe is getting hotter and heat waves start at a higher baseline so bleaching is more commmon which is evident from all peer-reviewed science and reality.

Mr. Steele had an official website on the San Fancisco State website that listed his office phone number. I called this number to talk to him about the problems with his essays. I got no answer and called back a few days later and again got no answer. I called a third time and left Mr. Steele a rude message. That was a mistake and I apologized to Mr. Steele for that inappropriate message.

Instead of accepting this apology, Mr. Steele posted on this website that, “Trip is now calling my house, dropping F bombs and launching insulting rants.” Mr. Steele also included the phone number and email for all of the viewers of this website to call my employer. I did not intend to call Mr. Steele’s house. I called the office number listed on his former employer’s website.

So, I left Jim Steele a rude message that ended up with multiple belligerent calls and messages to my employer and to me, and feature article on this website : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/
In this article accusing me of going over the top, Mr. Watts quotes an email from Jim Steele that stated,
“Hi Anthony,
Thanks for pushing back on Trip Funderburk. He has been relentlessly stalking and denigrating me at WUWT and Climate etc. He called my house again last night to verbally assault me.” Again, I called his office number 3 times. Twice no answer and once I left a rude message that I apologized for doing. I refuted Jim Steele’s silly essays in the comment section of various blogs, but that is not stalking, that is refuting erroneous propaganda.

I freely admit it was a mistake to leave a rude message on Mr. Steele’s office voicemail. However, is this offense worthy of the largest climate skeptic website to dox my employer, my former employers, my academic and professional career, and encourage readers to contact my employer and get me fired? And now this article is still near the top when my name is searched on the internet.

I wonder what is worse? One rude voice message, or doxing someone’s identity and actively campaigning to encourage/incite readers to get me fired for leaving one rude message?

I am spending my life to figure out why coral reefs are declining, and what we can do about it. Unfortunately, coral bleaching caused by climate change and global warming is becoming more widespread, more often and more lethal. This is personal to me. Lying about the cause of coral bleaching offends me and I seek to inform the readers of skeptic websites about the peer-reviewed science on the subject.

The IPCC projects that Coral reefs will decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C. The earth has already warmed 1 degree C since the industrial revolution. So, we are watching coral reefs die and disappear and the best scientists in the world agree that man’s greenhouse gas emissions are causing the increase in temperatures that are killing coral reefs.

Publishing essays that say that corals can instantly adapt to hot water, or that low tides in Indonesia are the cause of half the coral on the GBR dying, is frankly offensive and damaging. If the deniers of climate change and deniers of the harm caused by global warming on coral reefs want to demonize me, then so be it. I regret leaving a stupid voice mail message that allowed Jim Steele and this website to avoid an honest discussion about hot water causing coral bleaching and death, and instead try to demonize me and make the debate about my “conduct”.

• Tripp Funderburk wrote, “There is not one science organization that shares the view that climate change is not happening.”

Who do you imagine thinks that “climate change is not happening”? That’s just crazy-talk.

25,000 years ago the sites of present-day Boston and Chicago were under a sheet of ice, which is believed to have been about a mile thick! So you can bet your sweet bippy that climate change happens!

The climate debate has never been about whether climate change is happening. That’s a straw man. The debate is over its attribution (how much of it is caused by mankind), and its effects (beneficial vs. harmful).

There’s no consensus that it is harmful. In fact, the best scientific evidence is that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and higher CO2 levels are beneficial, for both mankind and natural ecosystems.

Here’s a National Geographic article, about the real, measured effects of manmade climate change, as opposed to the hypothetical harms hyped by climate activists, which never actually happen:
https://tinyurl.com/NatGeo2009

Here’s a century-old Scientific American article, about what anthropogenic CO2 does for crops:
http://tinyurl.com/1920sciamCO2

CO2 is “plant food.” Do you remember when terrible famines were often in the news, in places like Bangladesh? Famine used to be one of the great scourges of humanity, the third Horseman of the Apocalypse.

But famines are becoming rare, and one of the reasons is rising CO2 levels, which have increased worldwide agricultural productivity by about 20%, and made crops less vulnerable to drought.

Those benefits are well-measured, by thousands of agricultural studies. The supposed harms are just hypothetical.

Direct impacts of global warming are obviously negligible. We’re on track for at most about one degree Celsius of warming by 2100, probably less. That’s hardly even noticeable. It’s like moving about 70 miles south. Farmers can compensate for it for by planting about six days earlier. It’s just not a problem.

So folks promoting solar and wind boondoggles hype other supposed harms, like sea-level rise, or extreme weather, or polar bears.

But those problems are not actually happening. CO2 has been rising steadily for 2/3 of a century, yet sea-level rise has not accelerated, hurricanes are not worsening, strong tornadoes actually declined, and the polar bears are fine.

https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4

• Tripp Funderburk says:

Dave Burton writes, “The climate debate has never been about whether climate change is happening. That’s a straw man. The debate is over its attribution (how much of it is caused by mankind), and its effects (beneficial vs. harmful). There’s no consensus that it is harmful. In fact, the best scientific evidence is that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and higher CO2 levels are beneficial, for both mankind and natural ecosystems.”

With all due respect, the best scientific evidence does not state that manmade climate change is modest and benign. And higher CO2 levels are not beneficial for mankind and natural ecosystems.

Half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef died in the last 3 years due to hot water. That is the opposite of benign.

Higher CO2 in the atmosphere also leads to increasing acidification of the ocean, which makes it more difficult for oysters, corals, lobsters, etc to form their calcium carbonate skeletons. That is the opposite of beneficial.

• David Middleton says:

Higher CO2 in the atmosphere also leads to increasing acidification of the ocean, which makes it more difficult for oysters, corals, lobsters, etc to form their calcium carbonate skeletons. That is the opposite of beneficial.

More CO2 just makes the carbonate compensation depth (CCD) a little shallower. Oysters and other marine calcifiers had no difficulty forming their calcium carbonate skeletons when CO2 was far higher than it is today. The Austin Chalk is contemporaneous to the White Cliffs of Dover. It can be more than 1,200′ thick. It outcrops in the Dallas, Texas area. In South-Central to South East Texas, it is buried to depths >7,000′ below sea level and is a significant hydrocarbon source and reservoir rock.  It was deposited at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 800 to 1,000 ppmv in a water depth of about 800′.

By Joshua Doubek [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

Robert J. Stern at the University of Texas at Dallas, Wikipedia

Lower Cretaceous CO2 levels ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 ppmv and the seafloor not only didn’t dissolve, but 1,000’s of feet of carbonate rocks were deposited in the in northern Gulf of Mexico basins…
<

Lower Cretaceous stratigraphy (Dennen & Hackley, 2012), CO2 (Berner 3003).

Carbonate lithology is colored blue.

The notion that CO2 partial pressure influences the pH of seawater isn’t a new concept. We even studied it in college way back in the Pleistocene (1976-1980); however the phrase “ocean acidification” never appeared in any of my college textbooks, because it was fabricated out of thin air in 2003.

My Stratigraphy & Sedimentation (Spring Semester 1979) textbook, Principles of Sedimentology by Friedman (yes, that Friedman) and Sanders features an entire section on the relationship between CO2 and pH and how if affects calcium carbonate precipitation and dissolution…

When the pH of seawater decreases, calcium carbonate dissolves.  In warm, shallow seas, at a pH of about 8.3, dissolution of aragonite and calcite particles by inorganic processes is almost nonexistent.  However, since the classical studies of the Challenger expedition, it has been known that the proportion of calcium-carbonate particles in seafloor sediments decreases as depth of water increases (Table 5-1).  Such decrease is particularly rapid at depths between 4000 and 6000 m.  Although the reasons for this decrease have been debated, the evidence suggests that calcium carbonate dissolves because the COconcentration increases with depth.  The control on COappears to be part biological; it results from biological oxidation of organic-carbon compounds.  Also, the water masses at greater depth were derived from the polar region; their temperature is lower and the water contains more dissolved CO2. Increased concentration of CO2 is in turn reflected by lower pH, which leads to calcium carbonate dissolution.  However, the increase of pressure with depth may also be involved; such increase affects the dissociation of carbonic acid (Eqs. 5-11 and 5-12).  The depth at which the calcium-carbonate decreases most rapidly is known as the carbonate-compensation depth, defined as the depth at which the rate of dissolution of solid calcium carbonate equals the rate of supply.

Friedman and Sanders, pages 133-134.

A very thorough, easy to read, description of the relationship between CO2 and seawater pH… However, the phrase “ocean acidification” is notably absent from the entire 300+ pages.  How is this possible?

The depth below which CaCO3 ceases to precipitate is called the Carbonate Compensation Depth (CCD).    Below the CCD, seafloor sediments consist of siliceous rather than carbonate oozes.

• Weylan McAnally says:

David,

Great post. I sincerely appreciate it.

I live in the southern DFW area. Being 15 miles due south of downtown Dallas, I suspect I am located in the Austin strata area.

I live on a creek line and have dark clay “bottom land” soil. Literally across the street, my neighbor hits solid limestone just a couple of feet below the surface. I have many 70+ feet tall pecan, cedar elm and cottonwood trees. My across the street neighbors have difficulty growing any tree over 20 feet tall.

The creek behind my house feeds into a much larger creek which eventually dumps into the Trinity River. This creek has 15 to 20 feet tall limestone walls.

• David Middleton says:

We live about 1/4 mile east of White Rock Lake… lots of Austin Chalk outcrops here in the creek beds. We have Austin Chalk bedrock near the surface and have less foundation issues than the Mid-Cities because they have Eagle Ford Shale as bedrock. The transition is fairly abrupt in the Las Colinas area if I remember correctly. When they dug the DART rail tunnel along Central Expressway, it was through the Austin Chalk and they had serious methane issues.

• Tripp Funderburk wrote, “the best scientific evidence does not state that manmade climate change is modest and benign.”

Sure it does. Perhaps you didn’t peruse the link I gave you?
https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4

If recent rates of warming continue, we might see another 1°C of warming by 2100. (A continuation of the last forty years’ trend, if CO2 emissions continue to grow exponentially, is what should be expected under climate alarmists’ assumption that most recent warming is due to rising CO2 levels, since exponential CO2 level growth asymptotically approximates linear growth in warming effect.) Of course, resource constraints, unfortunately, are likely to curb the CO2 emission growth rate before 2100, but that just means warming is likely to be even less than the modest trend of the last forty years.

That 1°C is about the same as the warming we’ve already seen, since the “pre-industrial” Little Ice Age, which just about everyone agrees has been modest and benign. (Please tell me you don’t think the LIA’s chillier climate was preferable to our current milder climate!)

For most annual crops at temperate latitudes, 1°C of warming adds about twelve days to the growing season, and it can be fully compensated for by planting about six days earlier:
https://sealevel.info/wichita_spring_temperature_averages.png

As a rule of thumb, 1°C of warming shifts growing zones & isotherms poleward by perhaps 60-80 miles. That’s all. It’s barely noticeable. That’s a distance dwarfed by the ranges of most flora and fauna.

What’s more, anthropogenic CO2 helps to warm extreme latitudes much more than the tropics, so it mostly helps to make harsh climates a little bit milder, which is a good thing.

Tripp Funderburk wrote, “higher CO2 levels are not beneficial for mankind and natural ecosystems.”

Wrong. Higher CO2 levels have increased agricultural productivity by about 20%, and as CO2 levels rise that number continues to increase. It also makes crops more drought-hardy and water-efficient. Those are two of the important factors which are helping to make famines rare, for the first time in human history.

You might not be old enough to remember when severe famines, in places like Bangladesh, were often in the news.

Rising CO2 levels are among the reasons you no longer hear such news. Bangladesh and India now have food gluts, every year.

You might not appreciate just how deadly famines used to be. Famine was the “third horseman of the apocalypse.” The global drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the worlds population, when CO2 levels were at only about 289 ppmv.

For comparison, WWII killed 2.7% of the world’s population, and the catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world’s population.

Fortunately, with CO2 levels 120 ppmv higher, the effects of drought are significantly mitigated, and agricultural productivity is much improved. So, truly, there can be no doubt about the fact that higher CO2 levels are beneficial for mankind!

They are also benefical for natural ecosystems. Did you bother to click on this link?
https://tinyurl.com/NatGeo2009

The Earth is greening, because of higher CO2 levels. Surely you must agree that that is a Good Thing, right?
https://www.sealevel.info/greening_earth_spatial_patterns_Myneni.html

Tripp Funderburk wrote, “Half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef died in the last 3 years due to hot water. “

Oh, good grief, that’s what Terry Hughes was claiming, a few years ago.

His claims are disputed by Prof. Peter Ridd, a genuine expert:
https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-crying-wolf-over-the-great-barrier-reef/

Hughes’ claims are also disputed people who make their livings diving on the reefs:

EXCERPTS:

…the news is good! Contrary to the earlier reports that 50-60% of the coral on these reefs would die off, it has been discovered that this figure is actually less than 5%.
The two-week expedition surveyed 28 sites on 24 outer shelf reefs, along a 300km section of the far northern Great Barrier Reef. A section of reef that Mike Ball Dive Expeditions’ operations manager Craig Stephen is very familiar with.

“It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,” Craig said. “We expected the worst. But it is in tremendous condition, most of it is still pristine and the rest is in full recovery. It really shows the resilience of the reef.”

On the subject of how the media had portrayed the damage to the reef compared to the reality, he continued: “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we went we found healthy reefs. There has been a great disservice to the Great Barrier Reef and tourism and it has not been good for our industry.”

…there have been some majorly positive news stories on the resilience and recovery of the Great Barrier Reef that have not garnered so much attention. …

“Over the past 6 years I’ve been diving the Far Northern region of the Great Barrier Reef and have been happy to report that the area is still full of vibrant, healthy and colorful coral reefs. On this year’s expeditions, we have had various professional photographers and photojournalists onboard who’ve all been blown away by the state of our reefs. This is confirmation of how spectacular this region of the Great Barrier reef really is.” – Nick Leigh, Trip Director, Spirit of Freedom …

“These were the healthiest reefs I’ve seen over the past 5 years, including Palau and Indonesia.” – Lila Harris, guest of Spirit of Freedom.

Lots of things impact coral, including disease outbreaks, starfish infestations, storm damage, damage from boats dragging anchors, and perhaps even sunscreen from bathers. Disentangling the effects of all those factors is challenging, and speculation that manmade global warming causes damage is weakly supported by evidence.

Here’s a map showing the worldwide distribution of coral reefs. What do you notice about their distribution?
https://aamboceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanservice-prod/education/kits/corals/media/coralreefmap.jpg

Obviously, they are clustered around the equator. In general, the warmest water basins have the most coral reefs. Even the very warm Red Sea is peppered with coral reefs.

Water temperatures in the Red Sea vary from one end to the other. The north (Mediterranean) end is cooler, on average by about 2°C in the winter, and by about 4°C in the summer. But reef-building corals thrive at both ends. Even the very warm southern end of the Red Sea has many healthy coral reefs — and the cooler Mediterranean Sea has hardly any.

There are many thousands of species of corals, and different species occupy different ecological niches. Some inhabit temperate zones, and don’t do well in warmer water. But most prefer the tropics, and, where there are seasons, corals generally grow fastest in the summer.

Note that the Eritrean (southern) end of the Red Sea is the warmest end. From 7:20 in this BBC video, hear how wonderfully healthy the coral are there, in that unusually warm water:

Here’s some very lovely photography of Red Sea corals:

I’ve giving you good news, Tripp! So, are you glad to hear it? If not, then some self-examination is in order!

• Tripp Funderburk says:

Dave,
I don’t have time to refute the multitude of your misinformed views, but just to highlight a couple of the big ones:

You say that increasing another 1 degree Celsius is benign. That would be 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 Fahrenheit hotter. The IPCC says that, “Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.” It is not benign or modest to lose 99% of a vital ecosystem no matter how many words you write.

Terry Hughes and 28 other well-respected scientists contributed to the most comprehensive documentation of the bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in the journal Nature, perhaps the most respected scientific journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04660-w

Despite linking a dive shop trying to sell good news, the GBR is not recovering wonderfully as you describe. In fact: “According to a new study in Nature, the Great Barrier Reef — the world’s largest coral system — experienced two widespread coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 that did more than just damage thousands of miles of corals.

The bleaching and subsequent coral death, caused by unusually warm water, also impaired the reef’s ability to replenish and repair its architecture. The study found that afterward, the number of newly born corals landing on the reefs dropped 89 percent below average historical levels.

Moreover, these recent replacement baby corals weren’t the table-shaped or big branching species that provide the most “city” architecture. Even if the reef is someday covered in coral once again, the structure itself won’t be the same, with consequences for the reef’s biodiversity. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-global-warming-is-permanently-reshaping-the-great-barrier-reef

I trust peer-reviewed science in respected journals. You trust dive shops trying to sell tours and a single man, Ridd, whose views are counter to the overwhelming majority of marine biologists.

• David Middleton says:

The IPCC says that, “Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.” It is not benign or modest to lose 99% of a vital ecosystem no matter how many words you write.

The IPCC is full of horst schist.

All of the warming since 1850 plus another 1 °C of warming won’t even break out of the Quaternary noise level.

• Saighdear says:

horst schist Ha ha ha! Made my day, Makes a change from Muckin oot Geordie’s Byre ( cleansing of George’s cow shed) Horst! Hörst du auch zu? so’n Mist! Schaumal: ( Enjoy !)
Noo whan Ah-want-ta lauchin Ah think of the scene
Whan aa’body roon cam ower tae clean,
An claarted themsel’s richt up-ta the e’en
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Wi Robbie the Rochie an Willie the Doo,
The officer fell fur Jeannie McGrew;
And aa’body else that hud hud a capoo
At the muckin’ o’ Geordie’s byre.
Och! siccan a sotter wis aa’body in,
Five mile awa ye cud hear the din;
Even the verra-coo hud to grin
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Noo the bobby cam roon tae quell the fowks doon
The cratur gat loast whaur the ricks hud thur foon
He fell in the midden, wis like tae droon
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
The wecht o him syne sends the barrow in bits,
The wheel cairries oan an the officer hits;
Losh ye shud hiv seen hoo she did the splits
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Och! siccan a sotter wis aa’body in,
Five mile awa ye cud hear the din;
Even the verra-coo hud to grin
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Oh the whisky gaed roon, Tammy’s fleein the doo
An aye as they drank, the mair they gat fou
The only yins sober, the calf an the coo
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Tammy roars oot, “Ring the bell fur mair”
Syne he tuggit the coo’s tail, an pult oot a hair;
She kickit oot he gaed up in the air
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Och! siccan a sotter wis aa’body in,
Five mile awa ye cud hear the din;
Even the verra-coo hud to grin
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.
Oo-oh such a stanache was there to see
Five miles away you could hear the melee
Even the domesticated animals were consumed with glee
At the cleansing of Georges cow shed
Och! siccan a sotter wis aa’body in,
Five mile awa ye cud hear the din;
Even the verra-coo hud to grin
At the muckin o Geordie’s byre.

• Tripp wrote, “You say that increasing another 1 degree Celsius is benign. That would be 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 Fahrenheit hotter.”

That’s gibberish, Tripp. Increasing the temperature by 1°C would make the temperature 1°C hotter.

That’s no more than the warming we’ve already seen, since the “pre-industrial” Little Ice Age — which just about everyone agrees has been modest and benign.

You do agree that that warming is modest and benign, don’t you? Please tell me you don’t think the LIA’s chillier climate was preferable to our current milder climate!

Tripp continued, “Despite linking a dive shop trying to sell good news, the GBR is not recovering wonderfully as you describe.”

You are accusing the people who make their living diving on the GBR of lying about the condition of the reef. That is reckless and unprofessional.

You have no evidence that they are lying, and they have no motive for lying. If 50% of the GBR were really dead, they’d obviously notice it, and you can bet that they’d be sounding the alarm, to save their beloved reef and their livelihoods. But what they say is, “It is in tremendous condition, most of it is still pristine and the rest is in full recovery… The discrepancy is phenomenal… Everywhere we went we found healthy reefs.”

In other words, Terry Hughes is refuted, and Peter Ridd is vindicated, by the people in the best position to know.

Tripp wrote,

According to this source on the GBR, “water is always pleasant with ocean temperatures ranging from 23 degrees Celsius in Winter and 29 degrees Celsius in summer.”

The Red Sea is warmer. I just looked up today’s water temperature at Port Sudan, which is about midway between the north and south ends of the Red Sea. The water temperature today is 31°C, and we haven’t even gotten to the hottest part of the summer.

Yet the Red Sea is dotted with healthy coral reefs, even in the southern end, where temperatures are warmest.

How can you reconcile those facts with the crazy speculation that just 1°C of additional warming would kill off 99% of all corals in the world?

42. Pull My Finger says:

The EU Parliament has no power to introduce legislation. That’s about all you need to know about EU “democracy”. But still, the members get excellent pay and benefits and pay tax at a special reduced rate.

43. John says:

Could this be a reasonable question to give to climate “alarmists” ? If we take the premise to be true, that the fossil fuel deposits are formed from organisms that extracted CO2 from the atmosphere long ago, if we use those deposits for fuel, and so on, aren’t we returning the CO2 concentration back to normal ?