BY TOM HARRIS AND DR. JAY LEHR
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 APEGA leadership strongly condemned his comments and his award was withdrawn.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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sadly, everyone, including scientists, are all now, “I will say what you pay me to say”.
Good strong comments.
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
Dear President Trump,
This article describes the takeover of key institutions in the Western world by leftist extremists. I recommend a full criminal inquiry.
I also strongly recommend that Dr Will Happer‘s inquiry of global warming alarmism be launched without further delay.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/
Yours truly,
Allan MacRae
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
“…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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
Radical greens is using kale instead of lettuce.
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.
Excellent logic…. Unfortunately they don’t do logic.
Nor do they do critical thinking.
If you disagree with the religion – you are cast out as a heretic.
That’s this whole mass climate fanaticism in a nutshell. Cast out and demonized by the priests and the press.
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.
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.
Again, resigning means you’ve given up, and they win. I don’t find that heroic or commendable.
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.
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.
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;-)
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
“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.
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.
Alberta! I am gobsmacked. It’s time for a members revolt. I’m sure there would be overwhelming popular support.
Agreed. And then we’d see just how few members accept the faux science. It would be embarrassingly few i suspect
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.
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.
Ditto again for the AICHE (Am. Institute of Chemical Engineers)
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.
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
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.
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.
I realized in the early 90’s that ASME did not represent my values, and never sent them another dime.
It was in the late 90’s early 2000’s for me that I dropped the ASME.
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!
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
People who study linear systems know that if you change the input by a factor of
, then the output also changes by a factor of 
. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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”
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
Knowing the extreme position of the AMS is what gave her the gumption to call for such an outrageous anti science call for action.
Dr. Curry had some good comments about the AMS.
“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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
The best evidence is that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and higher CO2 levels are beneficial, for both mankind and natural ecosystems.
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.
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”.
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.